Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: In under the wire... I am still very angry with Bernie Sanders [View all]Gothmog
(154,485 posts)41. Exactly how many how many new/magical voters did Sanders need for his proposals?
I am curious to see what that number was. Sanders agenda was so unrealistic that it turned off voters who knew how the real world worked. Sanders proposal required millions or billions or trillions of new voter to be viable Bernie Sanders just admitted that his so-called revolution is a failure. Sanders was unable to motivate and get poor people to vote which doomed his so-called revolution http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
The point of the "political revolution" was that Sanders would change who was turning out to vote
The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It or rather, the possibility of fixing it was at the core of his entire theory of winning.
Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.
Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.
But on those grounds, the "political revolution" theory is quite plausible. As Vox's Dylan Matthews pointed out earlier this month, 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting population as a whole, they're more likely to be poor than voters are and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.
A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of voters could actually make a political revolution happen or, at least, bring the median American voter to the left.
Bernie Sanders isn't the candidate who can make the "political revolution" happen
It's hard to mobilize that 30 percent of could-be voters, though. And it's pretty clear, at this point, that Sanders hasn't pulled it off.
Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.
The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It or rather, the possibility of fixing it was at the core of his entire theory of winning.
Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.
Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.
But on those grounds, the "political revolution" theory is quite plausible. As Vox's Dylan Matthews pointed out earlier this month, 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting population as a whole, they're more likely to be poor than voters are and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.
A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of voters could actually make a political revolution happen or, at least, bring the median American voter to the left.
Bernie Sanders isn't the candidate who can make the "political revolution" happen
It's hard to mobilize that 30 percent of could-be voters, though. And it's pretty clear, at this point, that Sanders hasn't pulled it off.
Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.
The premise of Sanders' so-called revolution is that he would be able to motivate millions and millions of new voters which Sanders has failed to do.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
182 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's shallow as hell. Eco omic justice for all is good for america. If you want to shit on that
dionysus
Jan 2017
#2
What the fuck good is economic justice if we have a nuclear war or if someone as
Eliot Rosewater
Jan 2017
#6
90% of Bernie supporters voted proudly for Clinton.. I was one of them.. We NEED move on now, and
secondwind
Jan 2017
#115
I don't blame Bernie, but I do hold a grudge at those progressives who refused to vote for Hillary
still_one
Jan 2017
#133
Not enough, especially young voters. Bernie's attacks hurt their views of Hillary,
pnwmom
Jan 2017
#155
+1, this is the FACT that Sanders, M$M and Sanders supporters wont admit too... HRC Young vote was
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#161
You must have a fucked up idea of utopia. Please detail what you abhor so much. I'm dying to hear it
dionysus
Jan 2017
#16
My identity as a black woman fighting for the rights of those who look like me
bravenak
Jan 2017
#40
Aside from maybe suggesting the use of paragraphs, you think he's racist, don't you?
dionysus
Jan 2017
#42
I think he is a throw back to the split between economic justice and social justice in the late
bravenak
Jan 2017
#44
Not so at all. She got 3 million more votes, remember? Are you purposely ignoring the elephant in ..
brush
Jan 2017
#19
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#26
You know you post this constantly and without fail people pretend they don't know those points...
JHan
Jan 2017
#73
As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it."
George II
Jan 2017
#107
The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#34
Sanders was in the race for media and was rejected by Jewish, Latino and African American voters
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#38
Still preferred them, and until we have actual politicians in power promoting them, we cant
Eliot Rosewater
Jan 2017
#21
Exactly how many how many new/magical voters did Sanders need for his proposals?
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#41
I think if the campaign and their surrogates made the primary campaign about...
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2017
#30
You must have responded in the wrong place or didn't read my post. Try again.
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2017
#32
No, i responded and assumed you were criticizing Hillary's campaign, not Bernie's
Eliot Rosewater
Jan 2017
#39
Nah, bullshit point. Bernie's a sitting Senator. HRC is a private citizen.
emulatorloo
Jan 2017
#134
I am sure you will still be allowed to trash Bernie once this forum is closed down.
m-lekktor
Jan 2017
#25
Whats she supposed to say? She doesnt hold office anywhere currently and anything she says against
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#145
It sure did help Donald Trump. It was over a year of slamming the party without being
R B Garr
Jan 2017
#53
Sanders claimed that the DNC rigged the process and Trump ran with this bogus claim
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#77
I thought that there were emails showing some of the DNC leadership were working against Bernie?
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#147
The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#168
Umm I'm not making any case for Bernie here I am simply asking a question.
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#180
Don't be angry at Bernie because it will keep you from seeing who he really is
underthematrix
Jan 2017
#37
You felt it? and a comment that I said he shits on people's hearts?? mmmmmkay...
boston bean
Jan 2017
#47
Nonsense. It was his right to run, and he's not the one who stole this election.
tenorly
Jan 2017
#50
Even though I disagree with you I understand your frustration. This was a hard and bitter election
NWCorona
Jan 2017
#58
I feel exactly the same way..but we have to move on...what else can we do?..nt
asuhornets
Jan 2017
#59
Yes. . .campaigning with her after the convention is worse than calling her a nasty woman
Feeling the Bern
Jan 2017
#86
Yes, I see it too. But, I guess finger pointing is easier than mirror looking.
Feeling the Bern
Jan 2017
#112
I see a bunch of revisionist history that is erasing the negative campaign Weaver ran for NY
emulatorloo
Jan 2017
#138
Bernie's not the devil. Nor is HRC, despite your half-truths and innuendo.
emulatorloo
Jan 2017
#148
Nope. I am backing out of this flamebait thread. This entire thread should have been
Feeling the Bern
Jan 2017
#150
Even though I believe his refusal to concede helped weaken Hillary a little against Trump
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#82
I am actually upset that he pulled his punches. If he had gone after the email scandal full throttle
yodermon
Jan 2017
#85
Actually, in 2008 she announced that she would be suspending her campaign less than 24 hours
StevieM
Jan 2017
#119
No one can handle being torn down consummately by anyone. It always takes down numbers and
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#164
I am angry at those progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election.
still_one
Jan 2017
#132
Thats their right though but they like those who voted for Trump will have to learn to
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#144
Anger doesn't even begin to describe my contempt. The constant ridiculing of the only viable....
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2017
#154