From jkw, a Sanders supporter. Discuss.
The system is somewhat rigged, but not enough to change the resultClinton is winning the Democratic primary for a very simple reason: Sanders did not appeal to minorities. I like Sanders and wish he was winning, but he isn’t. I do think there are some problems with the primary system and I think that caucuses are a terrible way to decide anything and that they don’t really count as democratic – they structurally disenfranchise parents (who have to watch their children) and people who have to work during the caucus times. I think the primary system needs some reforms and it is useful for Sanders to point that out.
But ultimately, the reason Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee is that Clinton won the primaries with a large minority population by an overwhelming amount. The structural problems with our primary process probably increased her lead, but they are not the reason she is winning. I believe that Sanders’ policies would be better for most minorities, but he failed to make that case and so he lost. That is entirely his fault.
It is unfortunate that many of Sanders’ supporters are unwilling to accept that he is not going to win because of his failings as a candidate. To the extent that they can push for a more democratic primary process, they can accomplish something useful. But whining and complaining about how unfair the process is won’t help anyone.
After that NV fracas we’re getting awfully close to it.
I think that’s dangerous territory. Deciding which minority subset of voters is the key set ignores that you’ve got to get sufficient white men to win. Winning white men isn’t enough though — you’ve got to get a bunch of voters, and no one group is enough.
I’d also observe that Hawai’i is the least white; Mr. Sanders won it. Alaska is rather un-white too (relatively), as is Oklahoma. Methinks it’s not about minority populations; or rather, to be more specific, it’s specifically about Hispanic and African American populations… because the states I listed have larger Native American and Asian American populations, and they felt the Bern.
It would be far more helpful to look at cross tabs though — demographics of both the voter herself and the demographics of the community from which the voter hails.
To a large extent politics is zero sum, so losing a race can be viewed as failing, but that seems overly negative and not exactly right in this case. This wasn’t really a race that Sanders could have won. He needed to run one of the best campaigns (better than Obama’s) in history to have a chance. He ran a historically impressive campaign but it wasn’t enough. He was like a 40-point underdog going in.
The reason I mention that is because focusing on the failures rather than the successes of the campaign make it easier to snuff out any potential “revolution” (I think that term is overstated). Sanders could lose the race but still win the soul of the party. Unfortunately, right now I think he is failing his “revolution” by not reining in the fringe elements and arguing undemocratic things. He should say that he’s taking his revolution to the convention and that he’s fighting for the direction of this party and the country. He needs to let the powers know that unity comes with a price and it’s not just the need to defeat Trump.
comment 100%.
He was not widely known, and his campaign started from nothing about a year ago.
People he targets in the electorate, the young and those down on their luck, do not vote in “yugge’ numbers. The young make up 35% of the potential electorate while seniors make up 12%.
He is not part of the establishment Democrats whose elected officials hold pin pointed voter lists and donors.
The media mischaracterized him as some fanatic when his proposals were all supported by the majority of voters.
Calling him fringe and aligning Democratic Socialism with Socialism or even worse Communism
Minorities, especially in the South, knew nothing about him, and depended on their leadership to guide them. It didn’t help when Rep Lewis intimated he was missing in action in the Civil Rights Movement. There was no major enthusiasm for Clinton either as cast votes were down 30% from past years.
Ageism is also a factor, and I hear this a lot from the very young and those in his age bracket.
He was an unabashed promoter of breaking down the status quo. Change always makes people uncomfortable, and big change even more so. Especially older folks.
I agree with most of this, yet have a different spin.
He was in national public office longer than Ms. Clinton and made zero effort to become known among the various constituencies that are essential to being an effective president — and suffered the predictable consequences of that choice. He chose to stay outside the Democratic party for most of that time, and again suffered the predictable consequences. The media accurately reported his self-chosen affiliation with the Socialist Workers Party. The various connotations of that affiliation were certainly known to Mr. Sanders when he embraced it. None of that was nefarious or surprising.
Perhaps I am myself mistaken, but in my view first-hand reports from minority groups and their leadership are a more reliable indicator of who has and has not helped them than claims from supporters of an unknown candidate (not to mention a candidate from one of the most lily-white states in the nation).
Is it unfair to suggest that a different spin is to say that an unknown outsider jumped into the race at the very last minute and did very well given his utter lack of preparation? It takes more than one presidential primary season to build a reputation in minority communities. Mr. Sanders failed to do that. It take more than one presidential primary season to become well-enough known to win a contested primary. Mr. Sanders failed to do that.
I get that the results of the Bernie Sanders campaign are disappointing to those who expected a miracle. I think the most important question that remains is what we collectively do about the very real and significant issues and questions raised by his unsuccessful campaign.
The Clintons have sewn up the minority political leadership for years as well other long term Democratic office holders. Rep Lewis’ remarks about Bernie bordered on the unforgivable. He did apologize, but after the damage was done.
Bernie entered the race because he saw issues that needed addressing, and that Hillary Clinton would be essentially unchallenged. He is 74 years old so the Presidency was not a primary ambition for him. However election reform, single payer, and stopping regime change were important to him. He is in a different box than other aspirants for the office.
It is not reasonable to me that each candidate for the highest office has to spend years running. If someone presents a record and message that resonates, and they meet the requirements for office, they should run. His message is more universal than Ms. Clinton and actually stronger for helping minorities. He also started out as a civil rights activist. He had no burning ambition to run for President, but many of his constituents urged him to do so, and paying attention to what the electorate was saying about the country’s direction, he threw his hat into the ring.
What you call failure is what politicians traditionally do. Bernie took a different route. He was not traveling the country for years trying to be President, but doing his job in the Senate. As a Sanders supporter I am not decrying the fact that he won’t make it, but his ideas have resonated, and I believe he is in sync with most on BMG, so they should be pushing the ultimate winner to move closer to these changes that will only make this nation stronger.
Bernie is not a traditional candidate, and has thrown many for a loop, accusing him of things he has not and will not do. He will remain in the Senate, and will be one of Hillary’s biggest backers, besides holding her to account as to the electorate’s wishes.
The mobilization of young people, and independents is an astounding achievement in such a short period of time. One incident in Nevada, that has many versions without any demonstrating solid reliability should not detract from the decorum of his massive rallies, dedicated volunteers, and his financing of his campaign. He will not be a footnote in history.
n/m
with this 100%:
We should treat Nevada as something that happened in Nevada, not part of the national campaigns.
…what happens in Vegas…:)