2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo what is Bernie doing wrong?
Why is he losing by over 2.5 million votes?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think Clinton is simply doing great.
My answer to why he is down a couple of million is Clinton herself.
You and I get a little credit as well.
Historic NY
(37,460 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Where did all that donation money go to anyway?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They support the Queen of lies and Wall Street money and they have the nerve to say anything.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)party, then I need to rethink what I'm doing. The democratic party has left me as it's morphed into something else.
brush
(53,971 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:09 AM - Edit history (3)
Bernie the joined the party just eight months ago so he could more get media and name recognition. He certainly wasn't going to get that running as an independent socialist. He and Jill Stein would be in the same boat. People outside of New England would be asking "Bernie who" if he hadn't made that move.
He was literally late to the party though. He should have joined years ago and made a name for himself nationally outside of Vermont you know, to get name recognition and media coverage, form relationships with constituent groups, especially ethnic constituents so his support does not just come mostly from white dems. He should have put in work for the party, raised money for other dem candidates you know, the kinds of things that earn super delegates.
Eight months in the party of course puts him behind Clinton on those things, which when you think about it, explains why he's behind in both pledged and super delegates.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Is automatically corrupting, it is a fair question to ask
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)voters just don't like him..
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Experience helps. Alot. And those pesky relationships with diverse groups and organizations don't hurt.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)We need a battle-tested person right now.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)This country just isn't ready for the big change. And that's too bad, because we need it right now.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And poll numbers around 6%
If anything we should be asking why is Hillary doing so poorly for someone running since 1992?
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)She ran in the 90's with Bubba, and then she ran in 2008. She's a liar and a loser.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)and I don't think that he thought that he would be even this competitive.
It does make me wonder how he would have done in the 2008 GE campaign, though...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...Once Elizabeth Warren bowed out, if Bernie hadn't run, there would have been no strong progressive candidate in the race.
He should have had the racial justice/criminal justice reform planks in the platform to start with. Once he did have them there, that should have put the attacks on him on those issues to rest.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...that he actually had a racial justice portion on his issues page LONG before Clinton did. Anyone who says he wasn't addressing these things wasn't paying attention.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)To GRAB and COMMAND their attention.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and when we have dismal voter turn out it's a reflection of how much people actually look into our political situation. It also helps to have the media highlighting you like Trump and Clinton. It's not the only reason their doing well, but it's a majorly helpful factor.
choie
(4,112 posts)you have to have a media that is fair and willing to cover all Democratic candidates, not only the anointed ones.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)on, but many just don't get it. And IMO the DNC/DWS are clueless as to the mood of this country. I think they are going to cause a republican win in 2016.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)speeches you speak of.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...but it's not like he wasn't aware of the potential consequences of things like the crime bill. There's video of him railing against it on the house floor to his colleagues.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's mainly an issue of messaging problems and media blackout, combined with the fact that, even though the Democratic National Committee is supposed to be completely neutral in a non-incumbent presidential election year, that body has been relentlessly biased towards HRC.
Why would you even start this thread? You have no need to bait the Sanders campaign.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)No one running has "addressed race completely."
Seriously? What does that even mean?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He corrected all his shortcomings on the issue compared to HRC within one month after entering the race.
Of course no one has addressed race completely in that sense...certainly HRC has no claims to superiority on that in terms of her actual record(obviously she got the votes, for whatever reasons, and that's all I'm going to say about that).
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)Sanders, to his credit, has done quite a bit better than Bradley.
Also, I think that it was probably the DNC that ix-nayed a second Gore run in 2004 (and I think Gore would have beaten Bush in 2004)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)an easy task.
Contrast that with a candidate who started with nationwide name recognition and a huge amount of corporate cash, it is easy to see what an uphill battle he has climbed.
Saving the middle class is hard work!
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)The question isn't why is he losing but why is Hillary not cleaning up completely. Why is Sanders competitive at all?
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)He ran to raise issues and to shape the debate, not to actually win the nomination -- not at first.
Then a funny thing happened, a certain segment of the electorate resonated to his message beyond his wildest dreams and started pouring more money than he had anticipated by far into his coffers.
But because he had not planned on a serious competition with Clinton, he wasn't prepared for it -- not on the idea front, not on the logistics front, not on the data front. He did not bother, for example, to shore up his glaring area of weakness -- foreign policy. He did not really bother to flesh out his main policy ideas. They were more gestures than substantive proposals.
He did not think hard enough about building a disparate coalition. He stuck to one clear message and repeated it over and over again, in every context, without variation, elaboration, or nuance. He believed so deeply in the message that he has blind to the limits of it. He thought very little about how he might appeal to those who were not likely to be moved by it, in its pure unadulterated form. He was prepared to market his message only to those who would buy it hook, line and sinker. He did nothing to bring even the slightly skeptical over to his side. Indeed, he tended to dismiss them as disingenuous servants of the ruling class, whose concerns were unworthy of taking seriously.
And when the fight was on, he vastly underestimated Clinton's appeal to many elements of the democratic coalition.
He also vastly underestimated core democrats attachment to the legacy of Obama. He implicitly was running against Obama, without really fully owning up to that fact explicitly. But Hillary did a pretty decent job of smoking him out on that score.
He failed to build any very deep relationships with the foot soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains and general of the democratic party that he purports to want to lead. He ran as a democrat, not because he deeply believes in the party or its legacy, not because it represented a culmination of a career standing with and fighting for the party, but merely as a matter of convenience.
He tried to lead a one man political revolution, fueled mostly by those disenchanted with the party and many outside the party, and at considerable arm's length from all those party soldiers who have been fighting in the trenches for the party for their entire political lives.
Other than that, he's done a damned fine job. He started from nothing and unexpectedly made a real race of it. Clearly he tapped into to something deep among a certain constituency.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)choie
(4,112 posts)and the establishment Dems welcomed him? They've done everything to thwart his candidacy. Don't act like it had been an even playing field.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)Great response, thank you for sharing it.
I agree with a lot of this.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)MineralMan
(146,350 posts)There has been an assumption on the part of some Sanders supporters that is based on the idea that everyone will fall in line if only they hear Bernie's message. That assumption is always incorrect, regardless of when it is applied, and to whom.
Bernie has run a primary race that has been very focused. He's behind because people don't all buy his focus. He's behind because more Democratic primary voters want Hillary to be the nominee than want Bernie to be. It's really simple.
We have a primary race with two choices. People are making the choices they prefer. The results of those choices are reflected in the results from the primary elections and caucuses.
It's not that Bernie has done anything wrong in his campaign. It's that people are deciding to vote for Hillary. Two candidates. One wins. That's how it goes.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... hollow to people who expect results and have to gamble on him to deliver.
If Sanders had real results HRC wouldn't even have ran
choie
(4,112 posts)would have prevented Clinton from running. Her ambition and thirst for power fuels every cell in her body.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)choie
(4,112 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)choie
(4,112 posts)Just a compromised, duplicitous politician.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)choie
(4,112 posts)That is an absolute lie.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)choie
(4,112 posts)at Clinton, but he can throw boulders - she's bought and paid for.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Believe what you want.
He's a good guy. Just slightly better isn't good enough
choie
(4,112 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)whathehell
(29,103 posts)one of the 'myriad' ways. Put your money where your mouth is...If you can.
Oh..That's right..you can't.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)preparing to win the Democratic nomination. She put together the various coalitions she was going to need.
She worked on strengthening the relationships she had already had with the different
groups who make up her base.
She's actively campaigned and helped raise funds for other Democrats.
She enjoys a good working relationship with President Obama and has made a point of
expressing the need to keep and expand the policies he's started.
She's even Gasp compromised.
So now with the primary halfway over she is leading and she has a broad coalition of Democratic voters as well as congressional
endorsements and fellow Democrats willing to campaign for her and a bedrock of solid base support.
Bernie spent the 8 years since our last Democratic Presidential primary in the senate as an Independent.
He's mostly pointed out what's wrong with our economy and our political process (he's spot on in his observations)
He hasn't built the coalitions needed or the bedrock solid base support.
He hasn't earned the cooperation of fellow Democrats.
Most of his support is based on his ability to point out how things should be.
Bernie is a lot like a critic. He's been great at pointing out how it should be and since
his senate chair is safe he can remain politically pure and not compromise.
That's all admirable but it doesn't translate into votes.
Bernie hasn't been particularly effective at getting his progressive agenda implemented.
There's not realistic reason to believe he'd do any better getting his agenda implemented if he were president.
Bernie's had 20+ years as a senator. At any time he could have started his revolution and built it from the ground up.
He hasn't done that.
His message resonates with a lot young voters because they want it now.
Our political system doesn't work like that. Everything is incremental.
I'd wager that if Bernie could become president, in 2018 his biggest supporters right now would
take a look around and notice that tuition still isn't free, we don't have single payer healthcare, wages are still
not high enough, and then not show up for the midterms, claiming "What a disappointment he was, he's just another politician".
Lucky Luciano
(11,267 posts)If he did fail to achieve anything (which is possible with Congress), people might give up on him the way people did with Obama quite often...however, now he will be in the senate with a great deal more power than he had before - people will have to pay attention when he speaks.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... out
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)take a look around and notice that tuition still isn't free, we don't have single payer healthcare, wages are still
not high enough, and then not show up for the midterms, claiming "What a disappointment he was, he's just another politician"."
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)the advent of the Women's Sufferage Movement, the LGBT movement, the Labor Movement, etc?
Don't you find it interesting Mrs. Clinton was actively putting together coalitions and strengthening relationship all those years while saying she had not yet 'decided' on running for president?
http://worldanimal.net/our-programs/strategic-advocacy-course-new/module-1/social-change/social-change-movements
Social movements develop because there is a perceived gap between the current ethics and aspirations of people and the present reality. As Wilson said: Animated by the injustices, sufferings, and anxieties they see around them, men and women in social movements reach beyond the customary resources of the social order to launch their own crusade against the evils of society. In so doing they reach beyond themselves and become new men and women.
Because social movements are the consequences of new elements of civil society, which are not incorporated into the social order, they are always unconventional. Civil society is normally in a state of change, but social structures tend towards stability. That is why social movements almost always exist. If the discrepancy between civil society and social order is large, then social movements are strong and numerous. If the discrepancy is small, then social movements are weak and more conventional.
This disenfranchisement leads to mobilization first organizational, where resources are harnessed in support of the cause. Resources include: people, time, skills/expertise and funds. Then mass mobilization, where society is recruited behind the cause.
There is inevitable resistance to social change. Many do not want their vested interests or status quo threatened. There is also simple inertia.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)and are still being done.
The rights we have now weren't granted full blown and
all at once.
The ACA while nowhere near where I wish it was, is a start. I expect over the next
20 or so years it will be improved hopefully to single payer.
Single payer was never going to be the first step the same way marriage equality
wasn't the first step, a 40 hour work week and safe workplaces weren't the first step
de-segregation wasn't the first step.
I agree with Bernie that these things seem pretty basic, but he seems to be promising
things that he will not be able to deliver.
That's just the political reality.
He's really fired up the younger voters but if they really want to reach the goals
that Bernie is talking about it's going to take more than getting
one man elected president and it's going to take more than a couple of election cycles.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)and are largely blacking him out, and calling in favors to round up votes against him. It's not surprising.
But wod of mouth and the internet are beginning to get the word out anyway. And some people are proving that they can't be bought, or threatened.
Trump has had $2 billion in free publicity. Hillary gets a lot too and is already nationally known (not always in a good way, but it's still name recognition).
This is kind of self-evident.
4nic8em
(482 posts)"He's going after big money, they want their gravy train kept intact".
The big money powers that control virtually everything do not want an insurrection from the "people" who they govern and control. This is why Bernie has caught on with the "common" folk who align themselves with the Dem party even with a virtual media blackout. He has tapped into the notion of shifting the control of government power BACK to the American populace. His message has been somewhat more successful than the "99%" could have imagined or dreamed of since the 1980's. Bernie says "I" can't do it alone, but that together "we" can through a TRUE democratic process. His platform is a continuation of OWS (which was also an insurrection) and is slowly coming to fruition.
Comparatively, Trump has gained his right wing popularity through a similar but misguided message for much different reasons using racism/elitist division (take our country back, make America great again) 24/7 for months on ALL MSM. This is why the "common folk" align themselves with the Republican party. However, Trump's motivation is self aggrandizing. With Trump it's all about him maintaining power for his own personal/corporate/ego enrichment. This is also why the RNC/GOP will never allow Trump to to ascend to the Presidency (either outright or via brokered convention).
In my opinion, the growing outrage and disenfranchisement of the 99% (right and the left) will continue although for different justifications. Surprisingly, even some within the GOP now publicly acknowledge that Reagan's voodoo economics/trickle down economy since the 1980's was in fact a tremendous lie for those at the middle/bottom of the income ladder.
Peace
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)He's doing NOTHING wrong. In it till the END!!!!!!! Bernie or Bust!!!!!!
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Many voted for her because of the first female President factor.
Others voted for her because her husband was "the first black President."
It's not what Bernie is doing wrong. He's up against the Clinton Machine and doing surprisingly well, barely losing in Clinton's home state of Illinois. Bernie's doing something right - he managed to surpass O'Malley quite handily. We've got till June.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)your warmongering Wall Street coddling Fracker is only 300 delegates ahead of a candidate who got a GRAND TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES OF MSM COVERAGE IN 2015! She's struggling against someone with a long career but little name recognition and near zero media coverage. That makes her one &^%$!~* weak candidate!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Just curious.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)deeply Red.There were also election shenanigans in MA, FL, NC, NV and of course Iowa. Florida hasn't had a semi-honest election since 1996.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)I mean, at least you didn't bring up IL and Cook County...gots to be grateful for the small things nowadays.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Which is one of the most Republican red states in the country.
Is that state also part of "Dumbfuckistan" in your opinion?
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... homogenous "revolutions"
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)But I did.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Hillary wins states like South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama.......and Bernie supporters write those states off because they're red states.
Meanwhile they applaud Bernie when he wins states like Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska.
I guess importance to them isn't based on whether or not a state is considered to be a red state. Importance depends on how many black people live there. If there are a lot of black people there, they dismiss the state.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... Revolution from the ultra progressive candidate
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)Sanders is supposed to roll with Weaver.
Why he hired Tad Devine (who can't win an American national election to save his life), I'll never know.
Maybe he didn't have to choose an alternative who had won a national election, but someone that ran and won an election in an ethnically diverse state. He may have been able to get better messaging out there to the extent where he may not have beaten Clinton, but he could have made her sweat a little bit more (which I would have liked to see, personally)
Lucky Luciano
(11,267 posts)From total obscurity to where he got against the biggest juggernaut ever (i.e. a non-incumbent was expected to win the primary almost as easily as the incumbent!) is impressive anyway you slice it.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I suppose.
dmm80
(38 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)His message is appealing to a number of Dems. Just not quite as many as Hillary's.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)That's really hard to overcome.
At first the media ignored him and Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her best to hold as few debates as possible. Then the media started pounding him with negative opinion pieces. The Washington post is especially good at this (probably because Jeff Bezos stands to lose so much).
When so many people consume TV and print media that's a huge hurdle to overcome. His message is clearly resonating though. Those voters who support him passionately (of which I have been).... Well... we kind of feel screwed by the DNC as of late and don't trust Clinton whatsoever. So... there's that.
Another assumption: people tend to stick with what they know and Clinton, for better or worse, has some of the highest name recognition on the planet. That's another significant hurdle.
(Gonna throw in one last one: Being labeled a socialist probably hurts with people who don't educate themselves as to his actual platform. Some people hear the word socialist and they automatically think communist. We do not live in a smart country.)
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... some so called progressives and he's had just a so so presidency but with the rest of Democrats he's loved and endeared.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts).. New
Lucky Luciano
(11,267 posts)PATRICK
(12,229 posts)according to some successfully discouraged young people he hasn't slammed Hillary hard enough or played hardball politics the way someone actually hungry for the presidency would have done. That is only judging by his fearless foray of honesty into the debates and rigged town halls.
In actual fact he is up to superior organization, finance and a great lack of fairness on the part of a rather cowardly and self-dumbed down leadership machinery. And the media that has otherwise destroyed the GOP for ratings does not want its money feast questioned, destroyed by Sanders and his ideas. In party position, not ideology or talent of course, he is being given the Ron Paul treatment of a unified party front(excuse me, leadership, machinery, insider donors) who will use the two pronged approach(media muffle/"rigging" to exert political power over the insurgency(of the voters).
In a vacuum trying to fill it needs air. The vacuum is being maintained by and for Hillary. Oh, I suppose you could cobble together another "ideal" challenger and see that one destroyed in detail too but there is no real organization of any support that could have given sanders the incredible surge he has experienced- but for prejudicial doubts of an undemocratically anointed runner up from the last real primary.
november3rd
(1,113 posts)For a hundred years the suits have been perfecting the art of mass media mind control.
Let's not fool ourselves.
Truly independent, revolutionary thought and action is impossible for most Americans.
Our public discourse is OSSIFIED.
What Bernie is doing is lightening.
It's up to all the rest of us to bring the storm.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)maybe he underestimated the size, scope and sensibilities of the Obama coalition and Hillary Clinton's popularity among the majority of that coalition.
Regarding raising economic issues our country should engage with and address, I think he's been successful. At least I hope so.
Regarding social issues, I think he's been good. Some of his self-described online supporters and perhaps trolls did his candidacy harm via ignorance and insensitivity.
As for effecting lasting positive change, it remains to be seen. It depends in part on whether his supporters engage effectively into local, state and federal involvement. Both politically and non-politically in other areas where change and growth can occur. I hope they're successful in both areas because they are much needed to move the country on a better path toward peace and prosperity for all.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)MineralMan
(146,350 posts)involved locally is especially pertinent. I hope they don't abandon organized politics in a fit of pique over losing the presidential race in 2016. Politics is a long-term commitment, and change is also a long-term goal to pursue.
Bernie Sanders has done remarkably well this year. That should be a sign of hope for those who want to overhaul Democratic politics, but it will take continuing efforts to become a more integrated part of the Democratic Party to make real change happen.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)He's a white male Jewish socialist running against a white female Christian liberal Democrat. For some good and some bad reasons, he faced long odds from the start because of those differences. It's amazing he's doing as well as he is. He's introducing the possibilities of Democratic socialism for the first time in over 100 years.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)folks under 30 do not show up at the polls
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)He is who he is, he is presenting his agenda and not enough people are voting for him. It doesn't help that the msm is dazzled by trump non stop.
Broward
(1,976 posts)Vinca
(50,326 posts)He was treated very badly by voters in the south who should have had the opposite reaction to him. I guess that's a lesson in no good deed going unpunished.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)He actually did much better than most thought he would.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)He is doing well. Hillary was and is the prohibitive favorite. She had the name recognition, overwhelming party support and significant media support.
She also had and has a huge team if people who have enormous government experience. She and they have contemplated a Presidential run at least since 2000.
The surprise is not that Sanders is behind, but that Sanders turned out to be more competitive with HRC than any of the people who ran against John Kerry were against him or than Bradley was against Gore. Edwards, Dean and Bradley were all considered more likely than Sanders before he ran. So, is HRC running a worse campaign than Kerry and Gore or is Sanders really surprising people as a more compelling candidate than anyone could expect.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Bernie has almost no ground game in Iowa."
Memo to Bernie supporters: Voting dozens of times in unscientific online polls is not going to win Bernie the nomination.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251879648
Great thread, full of the repeating nasties and the zany cast of characters we've come to expect here on DU, folks who say 'Hillary is a liar' then later 'Hillary is my hero, Bernie is a liar' and expect to be taken seriously by readers.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But now he's down by more than 300 pledged delegates and 2.5 million votes.
BTW, I noticed Manny Goldstein made an appearence in that thread.
Whatever happened to him?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Strikes me as a bit biased on your part. Manny hates my guts. But to you, we are all one big giant voter with a Jewish name and a gay household. I get it. I always have but more are getting it now.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm just laughing about what happened to him.
Thanks for the chuckles.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'I don't give a shit about the things I go out of my way to type' is not a very truthful response. You tried to smear me with a person who is not me and who does not even respect me. You are playing 'Bernie supporters all the same' but this is not a good day for that ploy. You went out of your way to say that, then you say you don't care about what you yourself dragged to the table hoping to make into a center piece.
See, I don't play those clique games you enjoy because I respect democracy and American voters. I call out bigots who say 'Bernie' and bigots who say 'Hillary' and anyone who does not do the same is just playing accomplice and proxy for the bigots.
People who don't give a shit don't comment at all. And you comment very much on DU.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)that hardly ever shows up to vote.
They love rallies, reddit, Facebook, online polls, bumper stickers and yard signs.
They hate registering to vote and showing up at the ballot box on primary day, go figure.
What if Bernie gave a revolution and nobody showed up?
2. He tried to bypass a whole section of the Untied States and the base voters of the democratic party. POC in the south.
We have seen and heard the insults and paternalism for months.
"Stockholm syndrome", "Confederate states", "Insert state state name..is a red state in the general so it doesn't count", etc.
3. Overpromising what a BS presidency would accomplish to a ridiculous level.
There's more but that's enough. And its just IMO if we are allowed to have one, on the Bernie Underground.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)What was Obama doing wrong? (I expect zero replies.)
ananda
(28,895 posts)He is doing everything right.
But the power elite, their dirty tricks and
smear campaign and lies, exacerbated
by the mainstream media, are making
sure that many voters with eiher low-
information or seeking bias confirmation
do not understand him or his message,
which by the way, is the only good and
right message of the entire campaign.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Sure he can go to college campuses, promise free education, free healthcare and a $15/hr. national minimum wage and get away with such pandering. But, the older the Democrat voter, the easier it is to see through Sanders' smoke and mirrors routine.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It can be done but it's always difficult
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and as a consequence his upper limit in votes are people who are just like him: criticizers who cannot build a coalition with someone who disagrees slightly.