Why did hillary lose so many states to a guy who wanted to start a political revolution in 10 months

[Logical]

That is the real question!!! LOL

[tonyt53]

1. That's easy

Most of those states Bernie won were caucus states. Few of the eligible voters participated because the caucus sites were few and far between, pl us many people did not care to sit and listen to others politicking for a different candidate. Better question is how Bernie's supporters can't fathom how he has about 2 million fewer votes than Hillary.

[grossproffit]

6. I hate caucuses.

[artislife]

13. Step 3 of my caucus on Sunday

It is many things.

Long is one of them.

But I will pay my $20 fee to be a delegate and hang out in an overheated gym to do my part.

[lunamagica]

37. I assume you are young and healthy

[grossproffit]

83. That's admirable. Keep up the good work!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. FIXED

Better question is how Bernie's supporters can't fathom how he has nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary.

[tonyt53]

12. Got that right

[aikoaiko]

55. Well Bernie did get 40% of the popular vote. She won big in big states.

I never understood the fascination with absolute numbers when percentages provide more information.

[DLCWIdem]

82. the percentages really skew the results the raw vote totals are stark..

For example, he won Wyoming by 5% but it was only 32 vote difference. He wor n Alaska by someting like 80% but only 540 people voted in that caucaus and the numbers were 440 to 99. While Hiliary won Illinois by about 1 1/2 % which was a difference of around 35,000 votes. The Washington and Hawaiin caucaus which he won by a whopping 80-85 % didn't even have 35,000 in their whole entire caucaus. He won each by around 12,000 and 13,000 votes. There are 4 million and 7 million population in these states. The difference of votes in His last 7 wins including WI primary didn't even erase the difference in votes for her last 2 states. With numbers such as these I would have liked just to see only the percentages too. There is a reason he stopped ,vcallling for raw votes. Remember Iowa.

[IdaBriggs]

84. Those are delegate numbers, not the thousands of people who voted.

Please look it up.

Welcome to DU.

[dchill]

101. Sick and tired of these "popular vote" experts.

[sadoldgirl]

43. How convenient to forget Michigan and Minnesota.

[JaneyVee]

49. Bingo. And he outspent her 2:1 and 3:1 in every state.

[demwing]

2. Because she's a poor campaigner, trusted by few, and with huge negatives.

And just in case we have forgotten, there are still many states left for her to lose - this party ain't over.

[jg10003]

77. exactly ^

[oasis]

4. How do you compete with a guy promising free stuff?

[tonyt53]

14. No kidding

I'm a lifelong Democrat and what he has promised is sickening to me. Democrats believe in fairness, not a handout. Nothing wrong with working for what you get. I did.

[oasis]

18. Incremental change is much harder to sell. (eom)

[wendylaroux]

20. jesus christ you are unbelievably alot like a rush limbaugh fan

[tonyt53]

22. Spoken like a true Bernie-ite

[wendylaroux]

24. I am not sure what you are,ya hard worker you.

[tonyt53]

33. I'm a Democrat, not a bandwagon jumper

[wendylaroux]

34. lol

[Logical]

36. Says the guy with 100 posts! Lol!

[artislife]

15. By promising mediocrity!

God, we are lazy.

We had a choice

We could either work for it with Sanders, or sit back and say it was wishful thinking with h.


No wonder we are an obese nation.

[oasis]

21. If Obama's sensible approach wouldn't be accepted by the GOP,

what makes you think they would swallow pie in the sky?

[artislife]

40. What makes you think they will work with h any easier?

Not for the things that count. But they will pass any offerings she makes to their agenda, which she will do.

What is so pie in the sky? Kids today talking to kids around the world and they now know that they have the raw end of the deal for being in a First world country, their chances are on par with the Third world.

Wait for it to build...

[puffy socks]

67. What makes you think they will work with h any easier?

The GOP refusing to compromise is what caused gridlock since Obama took office in 2009.. They will cause gridlock regardless of who is president unless its an R.
Bernie refuses to compromise with Republicans and Democrats.
The make up of Congress and the Senate may lean more Progressive over the next two election cycles but we will not have two houses full of ultra Progressives any time in the near future.

[artislife]

91. Your name suits you.

[morningfog]

19. We need a candidate brave enough to run against free stuff!

End all the free programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I don't how those damn things made it through. Fucking free stuff.

[oasis]

28. How did SS, Medicare, Medicaid make it through?

I'm sure the makeup of congress had a little something to do with it.

[morningfog]

29. Hopefully the next congress can repeal all that free stuff for the moochers.

[oasis]

32. "Third rail".

But you knew that.

[msongs]

51. umm sorry but those are PAID FOR in advance by recipients, they are not "free stuff for moochers"

[jack_krass]

38. K12, fire, police, roads, military. Damn I hate free stuff! Fn Commies!

[oasis]

50. And parks/public libraries. nt

[GoLeft2004]

61. + 1001 nt.

[Logical]

35. We used to love free healthcare and college, now the hill fans whine like the gop

[oasis]

44. Paul Krugman's intervention program helped me achieve reality.

Bless that man.

[yodermon]

41. IF I'm paying taxes for it, it's not free.

I want my taxes to pay for my health care. very simple.

[oasis]

47. Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman doesn't believe

it's "very simple". When you get your Nobel Prize, the merits of your argument will receive equal weight.

[Eric J in MN]

64. Krugman was for Single Payer until

...Sanders advocated it in a presidential campaign.

[Eric J in MN]

54. Mitt Romney attacked Obamacare as "free stuff." NT

NT

[Gwhittey]

57. Does it bother you that you use same arguments that

Republicans use to try and get rid of Liberal policies? I mean if you posted this same thing on hannity.com forums they would embrace you as one of their own.

[oasis]

88. Tell ya what, when Bernie stops using the word, "free"

so will I.

[gollygee]

85. Nobody thought it was free stuff

We all knew it would be paid with taxes. My taxes would have gone up a good bit, but with stuff like health care and college for my kids, I'd be paying one way or the other. I'm fine with taxes paying for it.

[oasis]

89. "Taxes" of course. Just how Bernie would get the GOP to go along

with this fabulous scheme is something else.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Actually, if Sanders led a revolution, why is he so far behind?

In 2008, Obama led by 91 delegates and less that 1% of the popular vote. It was a hard fought, close campaign.

Sanders is behind by 327 pledged delegates and over 3 million votes. That is a distant second, not a revolution.

(Actually, Sanders is behind 808 delegates, because Super delegates actually count in the primary.)

[grossproffit]

7. She's kicking ass!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Look on the GOP side.

A reality T V star beat numerous senators, governors, and a son of a president and the brother of another, with ease,

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. It does provide a remarkable contrast.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. It is a testament to her strength she will be elected in a year where so many hate the PTB.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. That is a very accurate statement. thanks.

[Eric J in MN]

58. Sanders is leading a revolution which will take more than 2 years

...to succeed.

We'll try again in 2023-2024 to elect a bold liberal president.

[redstateblues]

103. Let's see how Bernie gets his fans out in the mid terms

[Gwhittey]

59. Huh

What in hell does Sanders being behind have to do with a political revolution? Anyway in pledge delegates he is behind by single digit and that is actually something. To anyone with half a brain understands that name recognition is key to winning a election. For him to start at -80 and go to what he is now with so little national exposure is a really good job.

[Yurovsky]

9. Because she is out of touch with where the party is headed...

with the astronomical advantages she had over Bernie going in (money, name recognition, organization, control of the party machinery, political IOUs, corporate/Wall St/!edia support, etc) it's is astounding that she has still not locked up the nomination. It reflects a few things:

1. She's not Bill
2. She isn't likeable (see #1)
3. She's not skilled politically at charming folks into liking her (see #1)
4. Being on the corporate take isn't playing well with angry voters
5. She's got an analog brain in a digital world (unlike HRC under oath, the Internet never forgets)
6. The party has been moving Left, she has drifted right
7. Unlike Bernie, the more people see/hear her, the more her numbers tank.
8. Greed is sooo 1980s...
9. Playing the victim card is tricky when you're an Ivy-league educated millionaire politician
10. She's not Elizabeth Warren either...

So she may win the nomination, and she may win the GE. But in all my years of observing politics, I've never seen a politician with such overwhelming advantages steuggle so mightily. I wouldn't go measuring for drapes & rugs for the Oval Office just yet. And when you think about #7 above, a second term would be very difficulty, since they can't hide her for 4 years and hope the public forgets just how unlikeable she is...

[thelordofhell]

16. Make up your mind folks...........

Either the system is so weak that a 10 month candidate can get so many states

or

The system is so rigged that a 10 month candidate could never win anything

[Fumesucker]

78. That was the point...

[corkhead]

98. Either/Or Reasoning:

(also False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, Binary Logic). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range of possible alternatives are always readily available. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you are queer as a three dollar bill--it's as simple as that and there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re in with us all the way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed! What's it gonna be?"

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

[truedelphi]

17. Oh, c'mon now! There are other

Questions as well.

Why is it that some of the truly liberal members of Congress have their panties in a knot over the
on going voter suppression and the "non-openness" of the Primary system in the USA?

Various tactics are being discussed to end these repressive means.


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35846-members-of-congress-call-for-end-to-mass-voter-suppression-and-insecure-elections

Representatives included the dean of the House and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, and longtime civil rights champion Elijah Cummings. Others who made passionate and sometimes angry statements included Representatives G. K. Butterfield (co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus), Sheila Jackson Lee, Terri Sewell, Maxine Waters, Marc Veasey, Alma Adams and Hank Johnson.

The briefing's sponsors, the National Election Defense Coalition and the Transformative Justice Coalition, support the urgent call for a new legislative agenda and political fusion movement to protect democracy, restore voting rights and ensure that every ballot cast is also counted in a secure, public, transparent process.

"There is a very insidious, treacherous and deceitful method of voter suppression, and it has to do with the integrity of the voting process itself."
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) brought much needed attention to a crucial aspect of the election crisis: the aging, hackable voting technology used nationwide. Johnson cited the fact that the vote-counting software in these machines is still programmed by a cadre of private companies on proprietary software inaccessible to elections officials and the public.

"There is a very insidious, treacherous and deceitful method of voter suppression," stated Johnson, "and it has to do with the integrity of the voting process itself."

#### Furthermore, there is at least one class action lawsuit underway in an attempt to remedy the loss of voter rights that went on in NY state in that state's recent Primary.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3044343/bernie-sanders-may-gain-delegates-after-new-action-class-lawsuit-seeks-to-prove-new-york-closed-primary-unconstitutional-could-stop-certification-of-results/


Because of a class action lawsuit challenging the non-openness of the New York Primary, it
could be that the situation is deemed unconstitutional. As a Californian who is out there registering my progressive brothers and sisters to vote as a Democrats in The June California Priamry, and we have until May 11th to do so, I think it is a very good question as to why the NY declaration of party affiliation is set up to end so spectacularly early in the process.

My belief is that, regardless of the outcome of any lawsuits, the closed primary system has increasing come under scrutiny this season.

####

And, because of the class action lawsuit challenging the non-openness of the New York Primary, it could be that the situation is deemed unconstitutional.

[tonyt53]

25. Non-openness?????

No, a closed primary is not unconstitutional. The problem with Bernie's supporters is that they want to hijack a political party without being a part of that party. THAT is the reason for closed primaries. Bernie could just as well have run as an independent or even a Socialist, but no, he is letting some other guy have the Socialist Party nomination. Keep on dreaming and conspiracy theory chasing.

[truedelphi]

31. I am not saying that a state should not have a closed primary.

But what is the advantage regarding the super-duper-extra early stop date for declaring the party affiliation?

I live in California, and I am out there registering my fellow progressives as Democrats and can
continue to do so until May 11th or so. This is the same as it has been for quite a while. And if you look at our state legislature and who we send to the US Senate, it demonstrates that the leniency with regards to switching party affiliation later in the game sure doesn't seem to have given the Republicans an advantage.

So I suggest that the only reason for the early stop date for re-registering as a party member has to do with protecting the neo con Reaganist-style Democrats, who actually have no more similarity to FDR or JFK than a broken down bicycle has to a bird.

[sadoldgirl]

42. No, the problem is that tax money is used

for primaries, and indies pay just as much as
party members.

[bvar22]

27. How did a man with practically ZERO name recognition at the beginning of his campaign

manage to fill stadiums in just a few months with talk of revolution?

[lunamagica]

39. Because he promised heaven and earth. Thankfully, people old enough to know better, and PoC who

have been promised so much just to get nothing..., well, must of us have been around the block, and knew better than to fall for fantasies

[sadoldgirl]

45. No, he just happens to include the poor

and the blue collar workers, who know that they
have no place in the neoliberal Dem party anymore.

[lunamagica]

48. Yes they do. And all those people you mentiond have voted overwhelmingly for Hillary

and no, they are not "low-information voters". It's because they don't believe in pipe dreams. They are her coalition, and she will not forget that.

[bvar22]

46. So you decided to stick with the same old same old,

KNOWING you will get nothing again. No wonder Las Vegas can keep the casinos full.

You grossly mis-characterized Sander's campaign.
He didn't promise "heaven and earth",
but a return to the policies that made our Party GREAT before the "centrists" took over and started dismantling the New Deal (FDR) and the Great Society (LBJ).
There is nothing in Bernie's campaign that is at odds with these great Liberal Democrats.

Is it promising "heaven and earth" to advocate for a return to these same policies that have been PROVEN to work for the Middle/Working Class and Poor ?
I think not.

If nothing changes,
nothing changes.

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Korean Free Trade Deal devastating for US Workers
What happened to the 70,000 jobs that the Korea Free Trade deal was supposed to create? They never materialized. Instead, U.S. workers lost 40,000 jobs in the first year of the agreement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html


Meet the TPP: Crony capitalism on a global scale
https://represent.us/action/tpp/

Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/18/retirement-

65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

"Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/

95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1

Yeah! Lets get some more of THAT!!!!

[Eric J in MN]

62. Do you think that if

...Hillary Clinton had advocated Single Payer and free tuition, then Martin O'Malley would have won because those goals are too big?

[jg10003]

81. I have been around the block many times. The last 7 times (92, 96, 00, 04, 08, 12, 16) I have.....

been told that in order to keep abortion legal, I had to accept Reaganomics. I have been told that the DLC - third way was necessary. I have been told that the democrats had to sacrifice fiscal liberalism in order to maintain social liberalism. I am tired of being told all of that. I want democrats to be the party of FDR and LBJ, not just the pro-choice wing of the republican party.

[TCJ70]

100. Sounds like those people you mentioned just gave up...

...and Sanders never promised heaven and earth but set forth an agenda and how to pay for it. Maybe if Hillary supporters had done a little more looking rather than being taken in by the name "CLINTON" things would have been different. Instead, they opted for "No hope. No change."

By the way, if Hillary had advocated Medicare for All, $15/hr, free public college tuition do you think MO'M would be the front runner right now?

[mr_liberal]

30. Email scandal. nm

[seabeyond]

52. Libertarians, baggers, Repugs and Anarchists gave him a push up in open primaries.

[COLGATE4]

53. Because caucuses are the most undemocratic form of primary election. nt

[Eric J in MN]

60. The NY system

...closed primaries with a 6 month freeze on party switching,

is worse than the MN Caucus.

[COLGATE4]

94. Because???

You don't think people can decide what party they belong to 6 months before a primary election?

[Eric J in MN]

95. Some people don't pay much attention to politics until

....the start of a presidential election year.

They should be able to switch parties to vote in primaries.

[COLGATE4]

99. Why. Belonging to a party involves a lot more than simply

being able to vote in its primary. It means espousing the party's core beliefs; working for the party even in off years; supporting local party candidates for office and supporting party initiatives. Doing all this even during periods when it's not 'fun' or 'exciting because of an election' makes a person a genuine member of that party and thus eligible to determine who that party's nominee(s) are. It's not intended to be a membership open to people of other persuasions who want to drive-by and vote in the primary, often with intent to disrupt rather than further the party's goals. If they haven't figured out where their beliefs lie a full half year before primary elections then the party is probably better off without their votel.

[LexVegas]

56. Its easy to overlook a weak candidate. nt

[Squinch]

63. Sanders has been starting a political revolution for 30 years. How come he's being demolished

by a candidate that you clearly see as weak?

[Armstead]

72. Yes it really is that simple....Must be nice to live in such an uncomplicated world

[jg10003]

79. Because the weak candidate is supported by all TPTB

The entire party establishment supports her, as does the financial and media establishments.

[Squinch]

86. First, look up media analyses of how much media time has been given to each candidate.

What you'll find is Trump first, Sanders second, Hillary down toward the bottom of the list. Sanders has had more coverage.

Second, you all are very fond of pointing out how very much money Sanders had when you all pooled your $27s. He outspent Hillary by multiples in most states. Sanders has spent more money.

And yet that weak candidate has cleaned his clock and put him away.

So, no. It isn't because of unfair advantages. It's because people don't believe your candidate, and they don't like him once they get to know him.

[onenote]

65. It's all relative. She's won 65 percent of the contests, a notch better than Trump

Clinton has won 28 contests and Sanders has won 18. That's a slight better than 65 percent win rate for Clinton.

Trump has won 27 out of 42 repub contests (with Cruz winning 15, Rubio 3, and Kasich 1). That's a bit over 64 percent.

How is it that Sanders is doing as badly as the republican field of losers?

[Zynx]

66. 40% of the party wanted a different candidate? So?

[Cheese Sandwich]

68. two words

that bird

[randome]

96. Finches "...are small, fairly-quiet, active birds that do not require nor enjoy human interaction."

Sort of describes Sanders' sojourn through Congress, doesn't it?

http://www.finchinfo.com/general/basic_facts.php

If you desire a bird which enjoys being handled, consider investing in a parrot instead. Finches are best for visual enjoyment, and some varieties are also great singers.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[asuhornets]

69. They were all or mostly caucuses and not racially diverse..Hey next time come up with your OP title.

[Tarc]

70. Mostly white caucus states, prone to Republican crossover meddling?

[Tarc]

73. Being up 3,000,000 votes and nearly 300 pledged delegates is rather intoxicating

Your turn!

[Logical]

74. You a smoker?

[Cha]

92. I was on that jury..

Tarc~

[Tarc]

93. lol, that's funny

[JI7]

75. most of her support is from people of color and she is unpopular among whites

[Buzz Clik]

76. That isn't the real question. The real question is, "Who has the most delegates?"

duh

[kcjohn1]

80. Do Hillbots know whites make up the majority in the country?

If a candidate has no appeal to white voters, how the hell are they going to win? Obama still won 41% of white voters.

The funny thing is the white voters who vote democratic are those under 45. That is the portion that Hillary lost by big margins. She won with huge margins those 65+ crowd that almost exclusively vote GOP.

[SFnomad]

87. Do BS cheerleaders realize that women and minorities make up a vast majority of the country? n/t

[senz]

90. Because she had everything going for her except genuine concern for people.

She neither likes nor cares for people. There is no goodness in her. SHE STANDS FOR NOTHING.

She is empty.

She had to stack every possible deck in her favor, rig every debate, every contest, through the slavish DNC. She set up backroom deals with promises and intimidation. She worked behind the scenes to make herself a shoe-in. She had it all set up before she ever "announced her candidacy."

It was the artificial campaign of an artificial candidate. It was a dirty campaign.

Bernie Sanders has spent his entire life working FOR people because HE CARES ABOUT PEOPLE.

He is entirely genuine, and those not mesmerized by corporate media inventions know it.

They feel it.

Bernie is the real deal. Hillary is a phony.

That is why he was able to do so much in so short a time.

[dinkytron]

97. Because when scrappy Bernie drives the lane, you best get out the way.

[redstateblues]

104. Bernie came up with a brilliant scheme

Promise things to a gullible segment of the electorate that he knew he could never deliver. It almost worked

[Eric J in MN]

106. Hillary Clinton said during a debate she'll

...replace all the lead pipes and lead paint in America.

"I want us to have an absolute commitment to getting rid of lead wherever it is because it’s not only in water systems, it’s also in soil, and it’s in lead paint that is found mostly in older homes. That’s why 500,000 children today have lead — lead in their bodies."

"So, I want to do exactly what you said. We will commit to a priority to change the water systems, and we will commit within five years to remove lead from everywhere."


Will she?