2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe female vote is going overwhelmingly to Hillary Clinton --- Hillary 69% Bernie 22%
Bernie is really struggling with women. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination if he continues to do so poorly with women.
-----------------------------------
Clinton's leading within every demographic group on the Democratic side but it's closer with some segments of the electorate than others. She leads Sanders just 50/36 with white voters, but is up 70/13 with African Americans and 84/8 with Hispanics. She leads Sanders just 47/32 with men, but is up 69/22 with women.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/gop-has-clear-top-4-clinton-dominant-for-dems-general-election-tight.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SunSeeker
(51,720 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)That's what scares the hell out of me.
Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)Do we have to wait until she becomes president before we find out what that really is?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Where we get temporary nothingness and they get permanent everything they've ever wanted.
Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)back burner or worse, will get rolled back.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Please list the bills or amendments she has written and gotten passed through Congress.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)a whole record you can look up.
Ontheissues.org
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She was a fairly progressive senator for the short time she was in Congress except, for example on the Iraq War Resolution vote and as another example, her stance on the Bankruptcy Bill which has harmed so many students because it made virtually all student loans not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Bernie's "executive" experience.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)His presidency would have gone much better if he had had that executive experience.
And secretary of state is not a "buck stops here" job. It is a management job, but not the job in which you make the finally decisions on broad policy.
Mayors make final decisions on broad policy and have to work with a lot of people, a variety, different kinds of people. Secretaries of state represent the country but they do what the president with advice from the CIA, etc. decides they should do. That is not and executive position although they manage the people in the State Department.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)despite the opposition of the Rethugs, who vowed very shortly after he took office never to pass any of his legislation. They lost. He won.
I didn't claim that the SoS job was an executive position. I think her extensive foreign policy knowledge and experience trumps Bernie's experience as a small city mayor.
Sarah Palin would no doubt disagree.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)better if he had had more executive experience and if he had dealt with the Republicans more often over the course of his career. I think he had no idea that the Republicans would make it as difficult for him as they possibly could. He is a good man, a wonderful man, but I just think he could not fathom how nasty the Republicans really are. They are just mean.
Have you watched the videos of Bernie Sanders as mayor of Burlington. He was fully engaged, a great mayor. You can see how well he likes bearing the responsibility of leadership and how well he does with that kind of position. I have utter confidence that he would make a great president. I hope he wins. I think he will.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Obama lacks. She and Bernie both have.
But I think his gaps in foreign policy knowledge and experience are pretty glaring, based on his debate performance. Consider his planned, rehearsed introductory statement. One sentence on the problem of ISIS and then he switched to delivering his usual spiel on the economy. He could have used that time for anything, and we've heard his economic spiel over and over again. Why couldn't he have used that time to give his vision of foreign policy?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They just want peace. What Americans want is more economic justice. That's my opinion.
Wall Street got bailed out and then waltzed away embracing the money the taxpayers loaned them. They took the homes of millions of Americans and the debt for the derivatives that still has not been paid is in the billions.
That's where we are.
Our children indenture their lives and the lives of their children, our grandchildren, to get a college education that is in other countries free, a gift to each qualified student from the taxpayers. A gift that rewards society richly.
Here -- no such gift.
And we are involved in nearly every military conflict on the face of the earth. Americans don't want that. We are sick of the foreign policy that has been imposed on us by the military-industrial complex. It costs too much --- not just in terms of money although it does cost too much money, but also in terms of life.
I say, let the Russians take care of ISIS. We tried and failed. We are hampered by our alliances with some of the very nations that may be supporting ISIS.
I strongly disagree with Hillary's plan for us to try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria. The Russians are flying there. Does Hillary seriously want to pick a war with Russia over this matter? I think she is under too much of the Kissinger influence. He is the war-monger. I do not care for Russia, but we have no business picking wars with other countries.
Bernie can easily hire better foreign policy experts than Hillary for his team.
And I feat the kinds of economic advisers and appointments Hillary will pick.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)We can't ignore the world and just try to fix our economy. We have to do everything at once.
No, Hillary doesn't want us to pick a war over Russia over ISIS. It's ridiculous to suggest that she does.
Based on his debate performances, Bernie has been doing little so far to broaden his knowledge of foreign affairs. He continues to see everything through his socialist economic lens. But the world is more complicated than that. i wish I were seeing signs that Bernie was broadening his perspective, since he could be our nominee, but he's beginning to sound like a broken record.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)He laid out very well the reasons why the middle east has become such a mess and took responsibility for US transgressions like the toppling of the Iranian democracy. He's the first major politician I've seen willing to own up to that.
Karma13612
(4,554 posts)you hit the nail right square on the head.
Lets take care of the home front first.
Bernie can get great advisers for Foreign Policy.
And when it mattered, on the Iraq War vote, and his reason for "nay", he got it right.
He.Got.It.Right.
And some people think Hillary has the "right stuff' for for foreign policy.
Give me a break
SunSeeker
(51,720 posts)Moms know stuff like that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)SunSeeker
(51,720 posts)http://www.newsweek.com/factcheckorg-giving-hillary-credit-schip-84419
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)and not just a copious quantity of great sounding platitudes.
-Hillary!
SunSeeker
(51,720 posts)
Cha
(297,693 posts)accomplishments.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And Blacks and Women!!! I do not see him gaining with those groups. I do not see much outreach to those group that are effective at bringing Hillary voters over. I actually find that the outreach makes me move more towards Hillary and away from him day by day. If he cannot draw more democrats, he is DONE.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Given those groups will suffer the most under her Republican war and economic policies.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)a 2.2% tax hike would pay for medicare for all. That's $1100 per year for someone making $50k.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Why do you think for one second they will pass a tax increase?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)At which point the percentage goes up.
It's called a 'goal'. Defeatists don't understand goals. They give up without trying. They are committed to keeping things the way they are now.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I fight hard. Bad plan.
Its a progressive tax, so theres an amount under which the tax isnt paid. As it also means no longer having to pay any health insurance bills, its a great deal for the lowest incomes.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Although that virtually never happens. As he wants to bring in a speculation tax it would probably be very hard for the wealthy to do anything with that money without contributing to the public purse in some way.
Also worth mentioning that a medicare for all system doesnt actually mean the end of private health insurance. In most European systems, there is actually a dual system where everyone is covered but the rich can still pay for private insurance so they can have their luxury facilities, private rooms, shorter waiting times etc.
The number of rich folks who would be happy to use public hospitals and doctors while managing to avoid paying into the system in any way is probably so small as to be irrelevant.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No. I do not want families making moderate salaries to pay for the healthcare of trust funders. Since he cannot get those taxes through congress, I guess the point it moot anyway.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Rich people have a real aversion to having to wait around in public hospitals with us common folk, and share hospital rooms and so forth. The number of trust fund people who would be willing to do that and who also managed to avoid paying taxes would probably amount to a few hundred people a year at the very most. In a country of over 360m people, that's an irrelevance.
Getting it through congress is a fair point, but in his defense he's said right from the start that unless people follow up with votes downticket and even more importantly actually support bills AFTER the election by putting pressure on their reps, that basically nothing will change.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)How will he get downticket dems in? Does he have coattails? Will the groups he is polling poorly in show up in droves for him? Will black dems stand in those long long lines for somebody that thought it would be good to primary Obama? There are just too many questions and not enough honest discussion.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)How can you even type those words?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)adopted it. Single payer means that everyone is covered. Eventually, the preventive care that single payer allows people to afford pays off. This is especially true of diseases like high blood pressure (very common among African-Americans and diabetes).
Single payer eliminates the profit that we now pay -- a bonus to the already rich that comes out of our insurance premiums and that add to the costs of our insurances making the insurance we now buy, the for-profit insurance cost us more than the taxes for single payer would cost us.
Right now, hospitals treat everyone (or are supposed to) but only when their needs are acute. Single payer would in the end be slightly cheaper in terms of care costs, but much cheaper because of the profits to the rich that would be returned to taxpayers in the form of services and cost-reductions.
The US spends 2 1/2 times the average amount of other OECD nations on healthcare.
The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
See the chart down the page at that link.
If we could save $3,268 per person (just for example because that was 2010), we could easily afford $2,200 additional for single payer. The administrative costs per person for Medicare are considerably lower than they are for for profit insurance so I think the $2,200 amount is too high.
I do think the tax would pass if it were paid into a health care trust fund and not mixed with money in the general fund. We need a Democratic Congress, but we won't get it unless we nominate a Democrat who speaks boldly and excites people. Bernie does. People will get out and vote for Bernie. Hillary -- not so much. A lot of people I talk to when I am campaigning for Bernie tell me they just don't like Hillary. That's very important. It's liking a candidate that gets you out to vote.
People just have to understand where the tax for single payer would go. I would want to know it was not going into the general fund.
As I keep mentioning, I am one of the few on DU has experience with single payer because I lived in Europe for years. It's great. There is no reason to fear it. If you think how much we pay for our medications and health insurance, the tax for single payer is not that big a problem. And you can choose your doctor. You aren't limited to an insurance company's provider list. Plus if you travel, you are insured. You just show proof of insurance. It's automatically the same system so you don't have to worry about whether your insurance company will approve treatment away from home. I loved single payer. I especially support Bernie because he is proposing it. Obamacare is an improvement, but single payer, Medicare for all would be the ideal.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We are not going to single payer right now.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to qualify for Medicaid, they do not pay taxes other than payroll taxes and are not affected by a tax rise to pay for single payer insurance.
That's not the way single payer works. Everyone pays in according to their ability to pay. Everyone gets covered according to their need for insurance.
It's a great system. I loved it when I had it in Europe. Beats our system even Obamacare by far. And is much cheaper than our system. We will end up paying less for it. And yes, it will come eventually because it is the best way to pay for healthcare for all.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)they are less likely to see a Rethug elected President.
And her record as a Senator was among the most progressive in the Senate.
ontheissues.org
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DWS/Hillary are playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette in the General, to get her the nomination in the primaries.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)we always face. And among many others, she would win in a landslide.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Carson showed some strength, but that was before he started to self-destruct. And if he had remained strong he would have trounced Bernie with women and minority voters.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I bet that helps Bernie bring in those voters by the millions.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and assorted other human death and misery producing things she's fully behind or refuses to get in the way of. If they aren't ignorant of those things, then they must be fully on board with them, no?
any questions?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)mcar
(42,376 posts)Isn't it?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
DhhD
(4,695 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/24/hillary-clinton-income-inequality-2016-election
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/why-arent-women-voting-fo_b_2556788.html
snip
The truth is that double standards still exist between women and men in positions of power, and female candidates are often asked to be not only as qualified and appealing as their male counterparts, but far more so. Tiffany Dufu, president of the White House Project, a nonprofit organization committed to increasing female leadership in politics and elsewhere, has said that female voters are indeed tougher on female candidates and that, in fact, "any individual who does not fit the leadership status quo -- a man, and usually a privileged, white one has to meet a higher bar." The same divergent expectations for women versus men show up in other fields, such as medicine, where a male surgeon may be the preferred choice unless, of course, his female counterpart graduated the top of her Ivy League class, has an impeccable track record and selective patient list, and is otherwise unimpeachable.
more at link
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I'd say it's inarguable that people, and regardless of the demographic, are largely not that tuned in at all right now, nor do they have the depth or breadth of knowledge about the candidates and the issues that political junkies like us do today nor will they come election time.
If they are being "spoken to" at all, it's likely from friends and family members whose persuasion efforts aren't near as adversarial as that to found in the political junkie crowd. If they are tuned out it's because they've never been tuned in to the extent we are.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)name recognition alone
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)reread the dialogue a few times, and maybe the answer to your question will sink in.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)*stomp feet*
"Because YOU told me the reasons why I should vote for x, I'm going to purposely vote for y just to spite you, even if you are right and they would be worse for the issues in my own life going forward...nah nah nah nah nah"
bravenak
(34,648 posts)humans.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)You define "trash talking" as someone with information, educating you (how dare they!) on some issue which they see as indicating you should consider the other candidate? You admit you "move the other direction" when that happens. Not only childish but the height of closed minded arrogance. And no, most liberal thinking people would not automatically shut their ears and double down their views to any information that doesn't support their self-imposed locked in positions
bravenak
(34,648 posts)or needed? You cannot force me into your belief system by insulting and mocking me. I know you think I'm stupid and I really need you soooo bad, but I don't. I educate myself and still manage to attend classes, post on DU and raise my children. I do not need a self appointed paternalistic lecturer forcing their ideas on me. It is rude.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)your insulting opinion of them as incapable of making as good a judgment as you.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)there's no disputing her opposition to single-payer, her lack of objections to the TPP, her warhawkishness, etc, so be my guest.
I'm not contesting their capability of making as good a judgement as I, I and everyone else are saying they ain't in this case for whatever reason/s.
Given that all of those issues, and likely more unbroached here, impinge negatively upon the continuation and quality of human lives, then I'd say it's incumbent upon you Hillarians to show how the policies of BS would be more harmful, and especially since they are demonstrably less so.
Bernie's side of the scales sinks like a rock, tossing her into orbit...
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)She is far more progressive than you give her credit for.
Both of them will have to face a Congress full of crazy Rethugs, which will limit anything they do. I think she has the advantage in electability and a much stronger campaign organization so far. But i will strongly support Bernie if he is the nominee, or Martin.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and if you truly think that they are, put your thinking cap on and top post your case for them individually, and see how well they hold up. Be advised though -- with single-payer alone we're talking about the alleviation of a huge burden to millions of Americans (like what currently, http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/ ?) that her plan will leave burdened.
That they are gonna face the same DC political landscape and actors on it is not in dispute, and whatever if any advantage in electability she has is far outweighed by those "minor" differences. Her strong campaign org suffers from the same lack of sufficient heft problem given that we can't really say that Bernie's is weak, and likely won't be in terms of the ground game especially.
Furthermore, imho there's a lot to be said for fighting the fight against the powers that be, win or lose in the short term. That's where BS far outshines/outweighs HC in terms of past record and present proposals. Why send the weaker/less interested combatant to challenge the rightwingnuts? Single-payer will never become the reality as long as it isn't fought for, and that's something she's undenialbly expressed a disinterest in/opposition to.
If our politics reflect or are dictated by our morals, then BS has the moral high ground on that issue and others as well.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to the differences between the candidates themselves.
And I don't think single-payer has a prayer of getting through Congress in the near future.
She's got strong support among women voters and among African Americans and Latino voters -- all key parts of the Democratic coalition. Bernie doesn't. At least at this point, she appears to be the stronger candidate. But I'm open to supporting him if he ends up with the nomination, as unlikely as I think that is.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)given her republican like tax talk as applied to the single-payer issue and opposition to it, his transaction tax for the WSboys she's yet to get behind, and on FP matters, particularly war, she's already closer to them than she is to Bernie. ANd she's inarguably closer to them on the TPP as well if she's unwilling to oppose it in like manner as BS. I'm also sure that the repubs like her MW proposal of 12 a tad better than BS 15.
It's not about Bernie insuring SP in the near future, it's about making it the inevitable future that an HC presidency will only protract further into the future as a direct result of her opposition to it.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)than she is to Bernie.
They support it. She and Bernie don't. Just because she doesn't ape Bernie in his approach doesn't mean they don't share a position against the TPP.
And the Republicans in Congress will stop Bernie or anyone else from getting single-payer through now. He doesn't have a magic wand. So she is facing reality -- he isn't.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)from the start coincide with HC's pov past and present.
As a presidential candidate she has used more hedging language, for example saying she has "some concerns," and now she has said she outright doesn’t support the deal as it stands. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/
Gee what's next, that is they make enough changes to make it acceptable to her Bernie will be on board then?
SHe's not facing reality, she's opposed to single-payer in principle. Are you ignorant of that fact or being dishonest about it?
It has to be one of the other, no? Regardless of the cause, it has no value as an argument in this instance. It's her opposition to SP that's the problem she needs to answer for.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to the Rethugs than to Bernie.
When she said favorable things about it, that was based on an earlier version that was in the process of negotiation. She hoped the final version would have the problems fixed. It wasn't fixed so she LIKE SANDERS opposes it.
And she's not against single-payer in principle. She supports Medicare and Medicaid and they are both single-payer. But she is against Sanders' particular plan that would let the states decide. And unfortunately, I think she's right that the public's not in a mood to support a tax hike on middle class families no matter what it is supposed to pay for.
It doesn't matter how perfect a candidates' positions might be if those positions make the person unelectable.
Addressing hundreds at Mountain View College, Clinton did not utter Sanders' name but left little doubt about whom she was referring to when she brought up an opponent who she said wants to dismantle President Barack Obama's signature health-care reform law and give more power to the states.
"I don’t know about you, but I’d be a little concerned about turning it over to Greg Abbott," Clinton said in one of several references to the Texas governor. GOP governors like Abbott, Clinton added, "won’t even expand Medicaid to help working people.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/17/dallas-clinton-sharpens-contrasts-democratic-rival/
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)where did Bernie say he was gonna leave what aspect of "Medicare for all" up to the states?
I musta missed that one.
and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-likes-oba_b_4881399.html
and their shared opposition to the TPP notwithstanding, the point was that she most likely shares more agreements in toto with the content of the TP with the repugs than she does does with Bernie, who doesn't appear to like much about it period in principle or practice. ANd what exactly doesn't meet her "high bar" by the way? Has the mealy-mouthed one ever designated/shared that?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Lots of opportunities to become informed -- and people ignore them or don't learn from them.
It really is sad as I said.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am saying that people who really understand the issues like so many young people I encounter when I campaign for Bernie, are supporting Bernie.
A lot of people do not really understand the differences between Bernie's and Hillary's stances on the issues. Hopefully they will before they vote.
How do you understand the differences between Bernie's and Hillary's stances on the following issues?
1) the rights of women in the workplace
2) Black Lives Matter
3) union rights
4) voting rights
5) the right to health care
6) the right to free college education in state schools
7) the right to family leave
8) the right to a living wage
9) the right to free pre-school for all families
10) the TPP
11) breaking up the banks
12) Wall Street and financial sector reform
13) increasing taxes on corporations
14) taxing the money the very wealthy and corporations hide in foreign tax havens that should be taxable in the US
15) protecting the environment.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need to feel safe in liberal spaces and feel comfortable expressing out point of view. Not much policy will get through this Republican congress and Senate, so, the minor differences between them on policy matter more to you than me.
Ten through fourteen are not even what any black folks I know personally care about. Obama did Obamacare, Hillary wants to expand it, Bernie want to pretty much dismantle it and start over, that does not sit well with black folks that he would radically change Obama's policies. We like Obama, not him.
Next, when folks trash Hillary? Black folks do not like it and defend her!! It has the opposite effect. Even I defend the hell out of her. I am to the left of both, but I would sacrifice my ideological purity for the good of all blacks and vote Hillary.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)themselves as 1%ers? Being respectful to Blacks, it is best for you to post their Official Platform, so we can better determine the candidates that the platforms match with; either HRC or Bernie Sanders. Will you do that for us? Thank you.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/us-usa-elections-georgia-idUSKBN0IJ0AU20141030#OGLiZYeQQUqhRCKZ.97
Who will move America toward more Equality? Clinton or Sanders?
Four years is a long time.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sanders has still not explained how he will do anything. And since he cannot pick up black voters he cannot win. He would have to figure out why he is not getting much support from minorities and change that to even be considered.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But this is assuming that you are right about everything, which of course, from your perspective, you are.
All the minor differences between HRC and Bernie don't amount to a hill of beans -- considering that the major impediment to any leftward progress will be the Congress. Bernie will run into the exact same Rethugs in Congress that HRC will have to face. And he won't have a magic wand or any super powers.
Wishing or wanting or yelling or threatening won't make them comply. Negotiating is the only option.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)and undecided voter (like myself) is ignorant, ill-educated, mis-informed, and doesn't "really know Bernie"
And that's supposed to win my vote...Ok, if you say so...
murielm99
(30,765 posts)better than older people.
I have seen some of them who should know better admit that they have never voted before. And that demographic is notorious for not getting to the polls on election day.
Many of them are naive. They do not understand history and have never been through a campaign season before. Many of them are new to activism and politics altogether. It is not us vs. them within the party. It is more about compromise.
Cha
(297,693 posts)of the voters.. women and African Americans.
Horrors.. not everyone thinks Bernie is all that! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(297,693 posts)strategy by his fans will no doubt be included.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(297,693 posts)You and Roderick Morrow.. and, there's more but not remembering their names right now..
The internet wants Bernie Sanders to know he isn't black
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718576
Just found this on the google, too.. it's gotten lost in the noise..
".... From his 2007 vote against Immigration Reform to todays #BernieSoBlack hashtag, that ... over the tone-deafness of his response and that of too many of his fans. ..... And we know that BLM, as a matter of social justice,is a democratic value."
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2015/7/19/102322/367
Blast from last month..
Trevor Noah smacks down Bernie Sanders’ fans: “Online doesn’t count”
He pointed out that, according to CNN’s first poll since the debate, Hillary Clinton was declared to be the “clear winner,” and “ruled the stage” by 62 percent. Simultaneously, numerous other CNN talk show hosts claimed that Bernie Sanders had won “hands down” online.
Apparently Sanders was the most Tweeted, Facebooked, and Google-searched Democratic candidate of the night, proving particularly popular with millennials.
But as Noah saliently pointed out: “The Internet is saying that Bernie Sanders won the debate and the media is saying, ‘sorry, the Internet doesn’t apply here.’ It’s sort of the same reason your geeky cousin is still a virgin: online doesn’t count.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/trevor_noah_smacks_down_bernie_sanders_fans_online_doesnt_count/
Just a damn snip//
Bernie Sanders’ black problem
Sanders decided to tell Stephanopoulos that black voters would love him if they just understood things better, an idea that is uncomfortably similar to the conclusion reached by the Republican Party’s infamous 2012 “autopsy report,” and an echo of the GOP’s point man on minority outreach, Rand Paul.
https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-black-problem/
Sorry it's so long.. There's just too much of this particular history on sanders and his supporters to cover.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I occasionally go back through to remind myself why I changed my mind. Once I reac the thousands of insults, I feel so GLAD I was in for only a short time.
I cannot imagine having to ignore this stuff or pretend it's okay for this long. Morrow was sooo funny. They harassed him forever.
Cha
(297,693 posts)They want to deny it ever happened.. they own it. Did happen.
I know the feeling.. I smoked cigs for two years in the '70s .. so glad I quit when I did. It was stupid in the 1st place.
Ok, you weren't stupid in the 1st place.. but I was! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I love this thing where people pretend nothing happened and that I am wrong for feeling any feelings about the stuff that never ever happened.
Cha
(297,693 posts)I know you're stronger than I am.. it would have killed me by now.
Deny deny deny.. that's their only option. At least there are a few Bernie fans who acknowledge it and think it's reprehensible.
I've seen their postings in the AA Group and sprinkled in GDP.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am thankful for them.
If they admitted something was wrong they might have to do a bit of apologizing and making amends. That is totally not what they ever want to do.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Mostly Bernie supporters were able to answer. Hillary supporters, not hardly at all.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I decided to trash gdp for just that reason. No need to rub in my 'support' any longer. I kinda like Hillary now after all of this. She really is much better than her competition.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Who is better informed?
Hillary supporters quote some source. They aren't very knowledgeable about the issues themselves. BainsBane is an exception.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251832654#post44
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary's policies to Bernie's. It's just amazing to me. Being able to explain something in your own words is the proof that you understand it.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)I disagree that there is a significant different in their policies. She's stronger on some things, he is on others. But both will be hamstrung by the same Congress -- just as Obama has been.
But I'm not going to go through your selected list with you. It would be a waste of time. Bainsbane has already done a good job and it's not like she had any affect on your thinking.
msrizzo
(796 posts)We don't believe that. And it is alienating.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As is the Obama sucks routine. Or the 'educate yourself!' thing. Or the 'Blacks are uninformed voters' thing. None of that helps.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)This decades-long history won't be wiped out by a few months of rhetoric by anyone else
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I support her more when people slander her.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)The more they post, the less I pay attention.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blame her for EVERYTHING! They even convict her of future crimes.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The 'Not Hillary' Party and then the Republicans don't have a chance.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you're not considering all the Republicans that are going to vote for Bernie.
Sorry, I was almost able to keep a straight face while I typed that.
Sid
msongs
(67,443 posts)
Politicub
(12,165 posts)ALL of them!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)we all know how much harder Hillary has to work and how much better she has to work...we see it, appreciate it, admire it and will vote for it.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Hillary has name recognition, Wall Street, Drugs, the MIC, all the Democratic PTBs ( Or is it PsTB), $$$$$$, all behind her,,
Poor , poor Hillary. 
Bernie has... his car.
Now if you are a black guy with big ears and a funny name.. now THAT is somebody who has to work harder to show how good he is....
Blah !!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)but if it makes you feel better for disparaging why a female, why this female, is excited to vote for Hillary, I totally understand. Backing losers can make one sort of testy.
oh and BTW there's a lovely mysoginistic thread you may want to give kudos to where it's touted that 99.9% of the women voting for Hillary have no clue what they are doing...apparently we are all pretty stupid. Lets just see how well that thread goes over with other women who may be on the fence...ok?
sheshe2
(83,925 posts) pangaia
(24,324 posts)And give up with the "mysoginistic' accusations. For god sakes I LOVE women, too much maybe. In fact so much I actually married 2 of them...!!! One at a time, mind you..
Now go look up answer # 23 like those service people in the Philippines...
Politicub
(12,165 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)why else would they not idolize the great Bernie of Vermont.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't give a rip who you support.
But please don't get into this crap about "idolize" and "the great Bernie" to be so dismissive of people who choose a different candidate, and to impune a belif in principles.
It's the same as the crap that people pulled on Obama in 2008, and which the GOP still pulls about the "anointed one" and "St. Obama."
DCBob
(24,689 posts)by some Bernie supporters who claim blacks are suffering from Stockholm syndrome and women are only voting for Hillary because she's a woman. When that stops I will stop.
msrizzo
(796 posts)But I don't think it's fair to selectively ask for that.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Who are voting for her based on "name recognition". Who uses that term often to attack Democrats? Rush Limbaugh, that's who. That's how low this site has become. They are now quoting Limbaugh to attack a fellow Democrat.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sickening.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)For one thing.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)have read that "story" and it was a part of our feminist movement to get men to stop thinking rape was fun - you know the "she was asking for it movement" that was very prominent back then.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Retirees, middle and lower income Americans, progressives, the democratic party, etc... I stand with Hillary.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Retirees, middle and lower income Americans, progressives, the democratic party, etc... I stand with Bernie.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, will vote for a woman if he's not. But, it won't be Hillary.
So will I.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)We voted for her before and, believe it or not, survived!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)She's great...And if were possible would damn site rather see her in the WH than Clinton.
Every election, the "not GOP" extortion does get harder to accept, I must admit.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)write-in Bernie? If you're going to choose someone other than the nominee, a Bernie vote lakes more sense to me.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Yes, even better than Bernie. But, Bernie is well within my nose holding range and, who knows, despite past evidence, maybe the Democratic Party is salvageable.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)
jkbRN
(850 posts)A 16 point difference for HRC
A 7 point deference for Bernie
PPP has been way off this whole election cycle.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)it's not necessarily the best data.
I prefer live phone polls that include both landlines and cellphones, but polls that use another methodology still bring some data to the table and so I consider them as well.
sheshe2
(83,925 posts)Thanks.
jkbRN
(850 posts)IVR/online.
Their polls always seem to be outliers.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
Quixote1818
(28,977 posts)Pollsters know they don't have to be very accurate up until the one that actually counts which is right before the election. They all try to nail that last one as close as possible but you can bet they screw around plenty up until that point to help who ever they like. Just watch how during the last few days all the polls seem to shift strongly. They attribute it to "undecided" voters but it's really all the pollsters correcting to what they really think will occur so they can stay relevant.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)instead of being told we only think about the polls.
To many, polls don't mean anything unless it validates their point of view.
Clinton is winning Women, Hispanics, Blacks and Demographics older than 33 by the polls I've seen.
Only those under 33 are going to Sanders, and even with that Demographic Clinton is winning more than 42%.
CountAllVotes
(20,878 posts)Thank god for that! 
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
elehhhhna This message was self-deleted by its author.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts) djean111
(14,255 posts)In fact, in real life, I have never met a Hillary supporter. Go figure.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)
ccinamon
(1,696 posts)at least 3, possibly 5, are voting for her because they "want a female president before they die"....ages range from late 50s to late 70s.
If Hillary wins the primary, and SOMEHOW manages to win the GE (doubtful due to the EXTREME Hillary Hate (TM) in the South, I can't wait to tell my friends, "told you Hillary was more pro-profit then pro-people!".
djean111
(14,255 posts)she is a woman. That, to me, is not what feminism is about.
Hillary hate - pretty much everyone I ask says they do not like Hillary. They may not know much about Bernie, but they do know that they do not like Hillary.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)I think we can, all of us, accept that Bernie has done a good job in the debates, as has Hillary.
So the problem isn't blacks, isn't women, and isn't Bernie himself.
So where's the problem?
In my opinion, as a Bernie Sanders supporter, the problem is with Bernie Sanders supporters. The last time I have seen this much spitefulness, arrogance, disregard for intellectual discourse, or venom towards the Democratic Party was when I took my uncle to a a Tea Party rally (and sat in the car for half of it, I was so disgusted).
I have lost count of the number of times I have seen Bernie Sanders supporters attempt to persuade Democratic voters to sit out the election if Bernie doesn't win the primary, and that's RIGHT HERE ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. I realize this site has gone to shit since the new voting system went into place, but if DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND has an army of people telling others to burn the house down if they don't get their pony, you can imagine how idiotic they must sound out in the real world.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)have noticed this exact same thing and have called it out loudly and often.
The sad part is that instead of actually shutting up and listening, way too many Sanders supporters have donned the Cloak of Victimhood and see the repeated comments about their horrible behavior as them getting "beat up on" instead of it being a natural response to atrocious behavior. And some are even trying to pass the buck and pretend that it's actually CLINTON supporters that are either a) the source of the "smears" against Sanders supporters instead of their own behavior or b) who actually exhibit worse behavior than that which has been documented against Sanders supporters.
These people actually try to compare posting of polls and questioning Sanders' viability as a candidate to the vomit-inducing harassment and racism that has been hurled at black activists, regular random black folks and the black community -- including black leaders that have endorsed Hillary Clinton -- from a loud group of Sanders supporters. Everything from alluding that black folks are stupid or have Stockholm Syndrome for supporting Clinton to shitting all over the Facebook and Twitter feeds of black individuals and groups that serve the black community. Their behavior is as counter productive as it is deranged and for some reason, everyone in the universe understands that but them.
What it all boils down to is a group of people who have done far more damage than any Clinton smears could have ever hoped to and who to this day, still refuse to acknowledge that. I have no doubt that their behavior will be studied for years and will become part of a benchmark of how NOT to do shit for many campaigns to come.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)There's nothing that turns off people more than being insulted about their choice of candidate. No one is going to be persuaded to switch candidates if they're are told that they are stupid for supporting a different person. It's frankly offensive and counterproductive.
It is also selfish and immature to state that they won't vote for the nominee and encourage others to do the same. They may not like Hillary, but do they think that Trump or any of the other Republicans, would be a better choice than Hillary? That's just sad and pathetic.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's even worse on Twitter, where there are fewer consequences. A few Black journalists have publicly announced they have had to block every single Sanders supporter because of harassment.
ecstatic
(32,733 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)You say it's a perfect example of a bad attitude?
I guess only total acquiescence is acceptable.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)... maybe participating in the primary process isn't for you.
Let the grownups push for Bernie. All kids like you do is turn life-long Democrats away from him.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Won't bother with an alert.
Goodbye.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Calling me uninformed and too stupid to know what's good for me, somehow doesn't sway me to your guy.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)What are you talking about? I agree with Hillary on most of her positions. Is that a cause?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Bestow your manly wisdom upon them so they may make a considered choice. Maybe just this once women should step up and vote for the white man, amirite?!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)good feelings in the end. I'm feeling alright. I don't think you'd be so all about those polls if you were in any way secure in your candidate's chances.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)I wish his numbers were higher. He just got completely overshadowed by HC and BS from the get-go, and his numbers are still in the single digits despite the 2 debates. Outside of DU, I don't recall hearing or seeing any support for him. Maybe if he runs again in the next election cycle, he'll do better. He's relatively young and still has time. I think it's interesting that while he still has less than 50% name recognition, all but 1 of the Republicans have more than that. They've all been in the news saying idiotic and divisive things, whether it's towards us or within their own party. The GOP is like a political reality show.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Too bad the majority of people sampled are seniors and conservative. I would categorize this under liars figure.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)
When the deck is stacked, it's hard to win.
Funny, I was taught to vote for the best person, and sex was never a brought into the picture. I'm sure the same holds true today.
Ooops, I guess not.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Maybe the women polled feel Hillary is the best candidate?
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Your point makes no sense at all. Don't you think my point would apply across the board?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Ooops, I guess not.
Maybe people are supporting Hillary because they think she's the best candidate.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)You win the coveted "Copy and Paste Expert" award.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Polls are showing Hillary's favorability among men is in the 20s. While her favorability among women is in the 60s. Are you saying gender has nothing to do with these numbers? How many other male candidates in the past has had a gender split like that?
I mean, come on! Even in the speeches and debates she keeps using the gender card about how "its time we have a woman president."
I never ONCE heard Barack Obama in 2008 say "It's time we have a black president!" did he? He had no intention of dividing America in that way.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts) litlbilly
(2,227 posts)
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,862 posts)Not this Asian.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)I expected a much stronger showing for Sanders among women.
AllyCat
(16,226 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)If no one else will describe the big elephant in the room I will. She will get a lot of votes from women SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS A FEMALE. Both from Democrats and independents.
In fact, Bernie must overcome that strong bias from the female voting population. No, I'm not saying ALL Democratic leaning women are only voting because of gender. But enough of them are, including independents and others that do not even pay attention to politics much to salivate over the prospect of helping to elect America's first woman President..to give Hillary a big advantage.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)On Fri Nov 20, 2015, 03:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
And this is news?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=832886
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Saying a lot of women are supporting Hillary "simply because she is a female" is hurtful and rude.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 20, 2015, 03:54 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good grief.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's probably true.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. How is this rude or hurtful?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh ffs.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The sexism here is getting old. Needs to stop.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please. Hillary plays up her gender and we are not supposed to talk about it here? Leave.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
riversedge
(70,306 posts)Simple as that. 
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)That's what your going with?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Why should the majority of Democrats vote for the man who refused for years to become a Democrat? Aside from the fact that he self describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist", not exactly a winning proposition in this country. Another concern is that he would be 75 years old on election day. A tad elderly to start a presidency.
Maybe Hillary is ahead because she happens to be the most qualified candidate in the race and at least has been a Democrat since the 1960s.
It sounds sexist when you blame women for supporting Hillary. In case you haven't noticed, most other groups also support Hillary: Hispanics, AA and even with men she's ahead of Sanders.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Which Bernie wouldn't have.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)She doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in the general if she remains so scandalous.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)joyful than a baby's belly laugh?
Thanks for that!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Karma13612
(4,554 posts)and we haven't counted my SEIU 1199 union rep who is also supporting Bernie.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)Instead of focusing on the horse race before they're actually out of the blocks, perhaps discussing the actual merits of the candidates would have more value.
The extremely important decision before us is better tackled by critical thought and substantive debate than cheerleading.
jfern
(5,204 posts)dpatbrown
(368 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Many of her supporters screamed that we were out of our minds. Amazing how so many obvious things are completely hidden from those who won't open their eyes.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts) pnwmom
(108,995 posts)all strongly support HRC. In other words, the Democratic base.
Just because she is a woman doesn't mean women are voting for her based on gender. They might prefer her for the same reasons that AA and Hispanic people do.
Gun control, for instance. And an ability to stay calm under pressure, and to negotiate and get things done.
SunSeeker
(51,720 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)I'm guessing it was not a woman.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)before I clicked on the message.
As predictable as a bitter, lonely rain you are, sir.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)"All Your Base Are Belong to Clinton" way back in September.
One person even threatened to bookmark it and wave it in my face later to prove some kind of point. Not sure what point that was. Maybe to point out how very accurate my assessment has turned out to be? No, it was something else...
Anyway, All Your Base Are Still Belong to Clinton and identity politics is what the Democratic Party is all about.
Clinton/Castro 2016, the Love Way of the Democratic Party. Cause Clinton loves us for who were are and what we can be.
RandySF
(59,246 posts)is one gets to see people's true colors.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)on his side. What is she waiting for???? Doesn't she believe he would make a good president?
Owl
(3,644 posts) 
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)IMHO
Cha
(297,693 posts)
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Hi Cha!
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And, given what I did/do for a living, I know a lot of people.
Oh -this is PPP. They suck.
Never mind.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)