You want Trump?
This is how you get Trump.
2 Likes
You get trump by focusing on real world issues that impact millions of Americans?
12 Likes
it worked last time in that the superdelegates were tilted for clinton from the start.
and there’s a lot to be said for media attention weighting one candidate over the other. ( fox news imo pretty much gave shrub the presidency when they were willing to cast a disputed count as a win in bush vs gore )
the contrary example is that nobody wanted the current president to win. so insider access to delegates and party money doesn’t always help. ( poor jeb. nobody really liked you either. )
3 Likes
While I generally agree, if it ends up as a choice between Biden and Cheeto Boy I’m not staying home like the crybabies that got us into this mess.
6 Likes
Vicious personal attacks gets clicks and the 2020 election is going to be setup as a total media circus.
2 Likes
Even there it was more a question of Clinton exploiting a flawed but transparent system, spending years courting/supporting potential supers in many states, rather than anyone successfully manipulating the results. The DNC leadership abused their positions and violated their charge and party ethics by trying to game the debates but there’s no evidence that their efforts had any actual effect.
and there’s a lot to be said for media attention weighting one candidate over the other.
Absolutely. This early in the cycle the press effectively anoints the frontrunners (in this case Biden and Sanders) and it takes a while for other candidates to gain any traction. However, as you point out the 2016 Republican primary is a good example of how the amount of impact this interference actually has can be pretty ephemeral.
2 Likes
The numbers don’t suggest that Hillary lost because people stayed at home (about 50,000 people across the US compared with 2012, apparently), they suggest that she campaigned in the wrong states in the last few days and let Trump take just enough votes to win the electoral college (about 78,000 votes in three states).
Edit: added how I worked out 50,000 people staying at home
4 Likes
So, almost 0.3% of the electorate donated to Sanders’ campaign
So what? At least she is catching up. Sander’s poll numbers have not improved. Warren is running a smart campaign strategy and there’s still six months before the first votes.
Worth pointing out that at this point in the 2016 campaign Hillary had a massive lead. Most of this map is really about Sanders having an existing fundraising base and infrastructure from that campaign, whereas his competitiors have to start from square one.
Hillary also outraised Trump massively both in amount but also number of donors so…
2 Likes
Actually, that’s not quite right. The data includes ALL donations made through ActBlue by June 30th, which they estimate is 94% of all money donated to the candidates. Only direct donations (not through ActBlue) are not included.
I’m more concerned that the map is now somewhat out of date since it doesn’t show any donations made since the last round of debates in July. I heard that Sanders gathered much more since then. And some others also gained many more donations.
1 Like
Millions voted for trump because they naively believed he was focused on their issues. 
1 Like
About their brains or…
1 Like
Yes, and she got more actual votes. The superdelegates never mattered; in the past they’ve never overturned the will of the primary voters, and they didn’t do it in 2016, either. People have to accept that Bernie lost because he wasn’t as popular with the primary voters as Clinton was.
3 Likes
polls – schmolls - sorry, but I’m supporting Sanders until the primaries convince me otherwise. He’s leading all the others but old school Biden.
1 Like
There have been several places that would be a questionable statement though. Besides the infamous Iowa “coin toss” there was a recurring theme of skewing by the DNC, as described in this article.
1 Like
The Dem Primaries use proportional representation, location doesn’t matter. Superdelegate ‘pledging’ is a creation of the media, the reality is that it’s just a preference and meaningless in the final count, hence how Obama won in 2008.
Written by a Vermont Sanders delegate whose primary source seems to be “countless Bernie Sanders supporters”. The one thing she says which is probably true is that shortening the registration deadlines for state parties would open up the primaries to more voters, who would likely trend progressive and in any event democratize the process more. Of course, that is not a DNC decision, and punishing state parties for not following national directives (as she recommends) is anathema to the bottom-up organization of the Party.
But the article is not wrong, the numbers are correct and the outcome as described, ergo there is a problem!
The primary structure is what it is (or was; it changes almost every cycle, to try to correct perceived problems in previous cycles). As with any method of selecting candidates, a different one might have produced a different outcome. In particular, more same-day registration might have brought in a different set of voters. This cycle, with no real opposition on the GOP side, it might even attract some Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries. Yay?
