Clinton's camp feared Joe Biden run, worked hard to kill it

[fluffitfluffit]

What you are missing is the Wasserman Schultz agenda of marginalizing Bernie

What you are missing is that DWS controls exactly nobody’s vote.

Sanders lost because he couldn’t get enough people to vote for him, period. Nobody stopped him from getting his message out. Nobody poisoned the well. He and Clinton made their case and people chose Clinton.

Sanders got a lot of quasi-left-libertarians, unaffiliated young people and Republican spoilers (nearly half of Sanders WV voters, for example, said they would vote for Trump in the general). But he was running in the Democratic Party primary where there are a lot of people who aren’t quasi-left-libertarians, unaffiliated young people or Republican spoilers, and he didn’t attract enough mainstream Dems to win. He started out as a total unknown (which is a tough way to start) and did amazingly well, considering. He just didn’t do well enough.

even though he was pulling in larger crowds than anyone else

Oh please. Trump pulls in huge crowds, too. Crowds aren’t votes.

[LearnedCoward]

@fluffitfluffit

Look at the polling. Her approval ratings among Democrats were 80%+ at times.

Of course they were. Nobody represents Rah Rah Team Blue like she does. She practically is the Democratic establishment, not to mention the candidate with by far the most name recognition. That approval is basically hers to lose.

@fluffitfluffit

No, not really. Sanders did very well with young people, with left-leaning and libertarian-leaning unaffiliated voters, and with white voters. He did not do so well with older voters (40+), minorities, and actual Democrats. But he was running in the Democratic primary, not the left-leaning and libertarian-leaning unaffiliated primary. So he lost.

Independents make up 43% of the population, while Democrats are 30% and Republicans are 26%. So, while Rah Rah Team Blue is edging out Rah Rah Team Red, the independents are half again as numerous as either of them. Reaching out to the independents might be a good idea.

Although Bernie Sanders cleaned up among us leftie weirdoes, the Republican race was a little more, um, interesting, so a lot of the more fiscally conservative independents voted on the Republican ticket. These voters would not want a fascist like Trump or a theocrat like Cruz in office, plus find themselves at odds with Sanders on fiscal matters, so they voted in the Republican race instead.

@fluffitfluffit

And if the armchair purity warriors could stir themselves to help us elect some more Congressional Dems in 2018, she’ll get some real good stuff done.

A bit of a strawman there. Nobody who’s paying attention and who gives a damn about this country would just sit at home and sulk because their candidate didn’t get in. The downticket races are more important, as are the ballot questions in many states. I would even say these races are far more important than the presidential race, especially in the long run. Even if I would hypothetically sit out the presidential vote, I would still definitely vote in the downticket races.

@fluffitfluffit

Nobody stopped [Sanders] from getting his message out

Not for lack of trying. Moving the debates to nights when nobody would watch them, repeatedly wasting his energy asking him asinine questions about Cuba and Soviet Russia that nobody else running had to answer, bringing up his religion and ethnicity, etc. Dirty tricks, but still well within the realm of what we consider acceptable politicking in the US, unfortunately In politics, nothing is absolutely fair, even though we try to look the other way and pretend like it is.

[anotherone]

@fluffitfluffit

What you are missing is that DWS controls exactly nobody’s vote.

You must be taking a piss because the other option is naivete. The media presents the candidates to the public and these days the media is simply a marketing arm of the political parties where the parroting of party narrative is traded for increased access. As a result, many people in early voting states didn’t even recognize his name. If you think the media covered the DNC primaries in a balanced manner, you weren’t paying attention. You may also want to look at the DNC wikileaks emails that surfaced showing the DNC pushed for Clinton and had working strategies to marginalize Sanders… one of their own. Had the DNC put the same efforts behind Sanders instead of Clinton, I suspect the outcome would be different. This is one of the reasons many democrats have a hard time supporting Clinton. We saw what happened and we disapprove. DWS was forced to resign for a reason you know.

[Medievalist]

@anotherone

the DNC pushed for Clinton and had working strategies to marginalize Sanders… one of their own. Had the DNC put the same efforts behind Sanders instead of Clinton, I suspect the outcome would be different. This is one of the reasons many democrats have a hard time supporting Clinton. We saw what happened and we disapprove.

I don’t think the machine politicians who control the two major parties have ever seen either Bernie or Donald as “one of their own”.

Other than that niggle, your analysis makes perfect sense to me.

[fluffitfluffit]

Independents make up 43% of the population, while Democrats are 30% and Republicans are 26%.

But actual independents are rare. Study after study shows that people who call themselves “independent” are actually reliably partisan when it comes to who they actually vote for: WaPo.

Moving the debates to nights when nobody would watch them

Millions of people watched them live. Plus, they could be DVR’d. You can watch them at any time on-line. You can read transcripts. Or you can skip them entirely, like I do, because they’re terribly boring and don’t often provide any information that isn’t more well-presented on the candidate’s web site.

repeatedly wasting his energy asking him asinine questions

Like every TV debate, ever.

In politics, nothing is absolutely fair, even though we try to look the other way and pretend like it is.

Agreed!

[Malarkey]

That it is! But it is also a wonderful place to live.

[PatRx2]

@fluffitfluffit

Sanders did very well with young people, with left-leaning and libertarian-leaning unaffiliated voters, and with white voters.

…and with unaffiliated voters (which is a sizable lot) and with disaffected Republicans. I stand by what I said.

@fluffitfluffit

Recent polling which asks this very question shows that the majority of people voting for her are voting for her, and not simply against Trump.

Which polls? Which pollsters?

@fluffitfluffit

she’s a solid liberal.

Liberal? Is she bringing back Glass-Steagall? Is she going to roll back the War on Drugs? Mandatory sentencing? Privatisation of prisons? The endless War on Terror?

Neo-liberal is not at all the same thing as liberal. Unless she’s willing to start rolling back the bipartisan policies of the last 40-odd years (mainly the ones that deal with regulation and taxation), she isn’t going to do much more than put a band-aid on the social problems besetting your country.

Blue dogs have been quite happy to let the Republicans set the agenda, and then pose as a reasonable alternative. That has meant a steady rightward creep in governmental policies to the point where liberalism doesn’t really exist, which is a pity, because neo-liberalism has proven not to work.

We’ve held on to liberal fiscal policies (little things like regulated banks) a bit more up here, and that saved us a shitload of problems in 2008. Note that, even after 2 consecutive Democratic administrations (the first with majorities in both Houses until the midterms), the causes of the recession are still in place. There is nothing to stop a repeat. Note that a lot of the financial shenanigans with subprime mortgages disproportionately affected Blacks. Will she make the kinds of regulatory changes necessary to prevent a recurrence?

[fluffitfluffit]

As a result, many people in early voting states didn’t even recognize his name.

How could it be otherwise?

He was a back-bench Senator from a very lovely but idiosyncratic and electorally insignificant state. He had no significant legislative achievements; he wasn’t a leader in the House or Senate; he wasn’t a darling of the Sunday talk shows (ex, McCain or Graham). He was unknown by his own choice. And that’s a tough place to start from, but the wicked witch DWS had nothing to do with that.

Nobody knew Martin O’Malley either. Is that the accursed DWS’s fault?

Had the DNC put the same efforts behind Sanders instead of Clinton

Do you really think the Democratic party is obligated to go out of its way to champion non-Democrats who jump into the Democratic Primary simply because they want to take advantage the party’s structure and automatic media attention: MSNBC ?

But again, nobody in the Democratic party stopped him from holding his rallies and making ads and giving speeches and sending out emails. Nobody stopped anyone from voting for Sanders.

But he was up against a team that had been through an election before and new how to play the game better than his team did. And ultimately, he just wasn’t that popular.

If you think the media covered the DNC primaries in a balanced manner, you weren’t paying attention.

I certainly don’t think that. But the imbalance was not in Clinton’s favor: Boston.com . Clinton got more media coverage, but it was overwhelmingly negative. Sanders got more positive coverage than Clinton. And, IIRC, Trump got more coverage than everyone else combined.

We saw what happened and we disapprove.

I guess we’re just going to have to disagree on what you saw and even what happened. We can agree that you disapprove. Bottom line is: Trump gives you 100% of what Sanders doesn’t want. Clinton gives you 80% of what Sanders does want. And if purity is your threshold, then politics is going to be a constant source of disappointment.

Also:
NandO:

More voters unaffiliated with a political party have cast ballots so far this year than at the same point four years ago. Unaffiliated voters cast 24 percent of votes through Tuesday, including mail-in ballots and the first six days of in-person, one-stop voting. That is lower than the 30 percent of registered voters who are unaffiliated but more than the 18 percent of votes through the same period in 2012.In 2012, “unaffiliated, if they were going to show up, they waited until Election Day,” said Michael Bitzer, a political scientist at Catawba College.

So… ?

DWS was forced to resign for a reason you know.

Something not many people are too upset about. She wasn’t really good at her job.

[TooGoodToCheck_]

When Biden was on Fallon, he made the astute observation that the way to become the ideal candidate is to announce that you’re not running for president.

ETA: I originally said this was on Kimmel, despite the giant logo clearly stating that this was from the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. I’ve mixed up my Jimmies

[fluffitfluffit]

…and with unaffiliated voters (which is a sizable lot) and with disaffected Republicans.

Sanders wasn’t running in the “unaffiliated and disaffected Republicans” primary.

Which polls? Which pollsters?

538

Liberal? Is she bringing back Glass-Steagall? Is she going to roll back
the War on Drugs? Mandatory sentencing? Privatisation of prisons? The
endless War on Terror?

Yes, liberal. You will probably be surprised to learn that you don’t get to define the word.

That has meant a steady rightward creep in governmental policies to the point where liberalism doesn’t really exist

Okie dokie!

[LearnedCoward]

@fluffitfluffit

Millions of people watched them live. Plus, they could be DVR’d. You can watch them at any time on-line. You can read transcripts.

That requires work, and most voters won’t put in the work.

@fluffitfluffit

Or you can skip them entirely, like I do, because they’re terribly boring and don’t often provide any information

Sounds like a low-information voter.

@fluffitfluffit

that isn’t more well-presented on the candidate’s web site.

Sounds nothing at all like a low-information voter.

You’re giving people a little too much credit. With all the election horserace mumbojumbo, very few people will seek out information pertaining to the election. The bullshit probably saps people’s attention from the issues, and this is a feature, not a bug.

[fluffitfluffit]

That requires work, and most voters won’t put in the work.

No doubt.

You’re giving people a little too much credit.

I’m just saying the information is out there. And we have to assume people are capable of learning enough to satisfy themselves. It’s nobody’s job to personally guide voters through all of the positions and policies of all of the candidates.

[PatRx2]

@fluffitfluffit

You will probably be surprised to learn that you don’t get to define the word.

Actually, chief, you don’t get to define it. I grew up with liberal policies here and (surprise, surprise!) in your country as well. None of what needs fixing in that little list is liberal by anyone’s definition, except maybe yours, if you don’t think they need fixing. So… answer the question. What are her policies likely to be on those issues?

@Ryuthrowsstuff

But there’s, near as I can tell, very little evidence of it.

You’ll want to read about NYC again as particularly screwed-up example. Even Di Blasio (a Clinton supporter) was rather aghast. That was not coming from Bernie supporters - you can get the story in the NYC newspapers.

The rest of it regarding primaries and independents is quite far from what I was talking about. Tories and NDP can’t vote in Liberal conventions here either. My point was very simple: Bernie had better reach as a presidential candidate than HRC. The polls were really very consistent about that.

[anotherone]

@fluffitfluffit

How could it be otherwise?

That’s sort of the job of the media you know…

@fluffitfluffit

He was unknown by his own choice

Balderdash

@fluffitfluffit

Do you really think the Democratic party is obligated to go out of its way to champion non-Democrats who jump into the Democratic Primary

Non-Democrat? I suppose those 9 years he represented Vermont as a Democrat don’t count?

@fluffitfluffit

Nobody stopped anyone from voting for Sanders.

No, not directly. They used the media to create a false narrative about him. This wasn’t the Republicans who did that, it was the DNC.

@fluffitfluffit

Sanders got more positive coverage than Clinton

Not what I saw. Where are you getting this info? From what I can see not only did she get more coverage in total she also got more issue coverage as well.

@fluffitfluffit

: Trump gives you 100% of what Sanders doesn’t want. Clinton gives you 80% of what Sanders does want. And if purity is your threshold, then politics is going to be a constant source of disappointment.

That only makes sense if you think it’s a Clinton vs Trump choice and it’s not.

[fluffitfluffit]

Actually, chief, you don’t get to define it.

I don’t need to. It already has a definition - and it isn’t “This random grab bag of stuff from some guy on the internet”.

Her positions on those things will be to the left of center of American politics, modulated by what the state of Congress makes possible. The right will find no joy in 99% of her positions, statements, bills signed/vetoed or executive actions taken.

[PatRx2]

@fluffitfluffit

It already has a definition - and it isn’t “This random grab bag of stuff from some guy on the internet”.

I think that may be a description that cuts in your direction quite as much as mine, possibly more.

@fluffitfluffit

Her positions on those things will be to the left of center of American politics, modulated by what the state of Congress makes possible.

And those policies would be? Surely you have some idea of what she will be trying to achieve? Things are always “modulated by the state of Congress”, but there are usually policy desiderata to work from. I’ve gotten a lot of high-flown generalities and absolutely no particulars from you so far. What are her policies likely to be on these matters?

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

@PatRx2

You’ll want to read about NYC again as particularly screwed-up example.

The voter rolls purge?

Yeah that’s a perpetual problem in NYC, part of the generally shitshow support the Outer Boroughs get from city hall. I generally forgive people for not realizing because it generally doesn’t hit the news outside of the Boroughs where it happens. Similar things happen nearly every election, national or not.

But those registration rolls are managed by the city not the DNC. Which is why Di Blasio is so embarrassed by them. Its exactly the kind of bullshit he was elected to, and seems characteristically uninterested in, preventing. (Di Blasio is an idiot BTW). The districts where most were effected polled heavily, and voted heavily for Hillary. Such that even if every purged voter voted for Bernie, Hillary would have still won. And based on that polling, demographics and other info its pretty evident that more Hillary votes were prevented then ones for Bernie.

Its legitimately a problem, a scandal. But its neither new, nor is it the precise scandal that Republicans and former Bernie backers would have you believe. The Scandal is that the City of New York cannot be shitted to properly administer an Election where there are large non-white populations. Just as they can’t be bothered to regularly pick up trash, maintain infrastructure or MTA service, or plow the fucking snow.

Hell I personally know a number of people who were improperly purged from the voter rolls in Brooklyn and Queens. Every one of them planning to vote for Hillary in the Primary.

[PatRx2]

Fair enough. It did reach outside your country, though. Might be incentive to really fix things, maybe?

[fluffitfluffit]

That’s sort of the job of the media you know…

No, it absolutely isn’t. It’s absolutely not the media’s job to give all candidates equal positive and negative coverage. And it’s ludicrous to suggest that the media is obligated to work to give a person equal name recognition as a first lady + SoS + Senator simply because that person has declared himself (or herself) to be a candidate.

“Hey, I’m running! Make me as famous as someone who has worked for decades in the public eye! And do it quick - I have to win this election!”

I suppose those 9 years he represented Vermont as a Democrat don’t count?

He has never represented VT as a Democrat. Wiki . He has run in Dem primaries but always served as an I.

No, not directly.

And not indirectly.

. Where are you getting this info?

From the link I left. Here it is again.

That only makes sense if you think it’s a Clinton vs Trump choice and it’s not.

It is. Nobody else can win. You’re going to get one or the other.

[fluffitfluffit]

And those policies would be?

I assume they have Google where you are?

Is she bringing back Glass-Steagall?

She has said she isn’t going to propose it.

But.laws are ultimately Congress’ job.

Is she going to roll back the War on Drugs?

“Roll back” can mean anything. She has said she wants to change sentencing, give the states leeway to experiment with pot, start treating addiction as an illness rather than a crime, etc…

See also: Congress. See also: the laws in the 50 different states.

Mandatory sentencing? Privatisation of prisons?

Read it for yourself

But again…Congress, States.

The endless War on Terror?

That probably depends more on how Terror feels about it. If there are more attacks, there will be more retaliation. That’s a given regardless of who is President.