The Clinton Victory Thread

[proudfootz]

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.



I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.

If it comes down to Sanders v Trump in the election, it will be interesting to see whether US voters go for the integrity of Sanders or for the demagoguery of Trump.

From the perspective here on the ground, I'm afraid it's too close to call.

Once it gets down to the debates against the two, how's Trump going to answer any questions on policy? How stupid is he going to look when Sanders can tell the people what he's going to do for them and then when asked his policy positions and how he's going to implement them he's going to say "It's going to be great, tremendous, wait and see!"

The problem is many voters in the US aren't very interested in policy - they prefer personality.

Look at some of the Clinton supporters - they think she's a 'winner' and that is apparently the only thing that matters.

Many Trump supporters are likely the same - the guy is a 'winner' - he's rich isn't he? And isn't that what the Capitalist Faith teaches us? He's also a magnet for angry white dudes who seem more interested in beating people up than in actually solving the social and economic problems that contribute to their anger.

[Thommo]

Yes, thanks for that Peewee style "I know you are but what am I". Very constructive. I feel the emote spam really ups the level of maturity too. That's a great example of why it's not going to be fruitful for me to explain further.

Here's another, regarding this "phenomenal success" you want to praise Bernie for:

6th best democratic turnout out of the last 10 datapoints (noting that re-election years dominate the low points as well), estimated to be about one person in eight or nine. Of which Sanders is getting less than half to vote for him. People who have a better claim to be a phenomenon might be Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz. All of them except Trump would be bullshitting though.

[Teague]

Ms Clinton has also been in California this week, for a series of fundraisers in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. But as if to highlight the differences between the two campaigns, entry to Mr Sanders’s LA rally was free, while the cheapest tickets to Ms Clinton’s celebrity-studded event at the Avalon nightclub in Hollywood on Thursday cost $500 (£355).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 49396.html

[Willie71]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

Presidential candidate doesn't want to be a leader. And the important question to get his support is "what will you do for us?".

I really don't think he came over well there at all.

It's part of his revolution. He can't do it alone. He needs motivated local leaders to work for change at all levels of government. This makes sense to most people. Americans in general have been sold, and bought into individualism, and look what it's given them. Some people get it.

[Columbus]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

To me that was perfect.
If things keep going as they are, Sanders will get to the convention with clout. Bunches of new or independent voters backing him. That means that the Democratic establishment will play ball. Exactly what Sanders will get depends on a lot of factors and I doubt that he will tip his hand too much in advance.

He also knows that effectively pushing his agenda depends on more than getting the nomination. The best way to do that is to get both the Oval Office and get rid of as many of the Republican obstructionist on Capitol Hill as possible.

Doing battle with the establishment is not the way to do that. And with the GOP melting down, flipping the Senate blue is feasible. Imagine if Clinton and the establishment offered to let him pick the next SCOTUS judge, as an example.

Tom

[proudfootz]

An electric night that began with Boulder County Democrats lining blocks to get into caucus sites turned ugly in many spots, as unexpectedly high turnout meant thousands of would-be caucus-goers were denied the chance to partake, despite spending hours in line.

Turnout vastly exceeded projections — and 2008 totals — at many of the party's 22 Boulder County caucus supersites Tuesday night, including locations in Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette.

But while Bernie Sanders handily defeated Hillary Clinton in Colorado's slice of the "Super Tuesday" spectacle, in Boulder County at least, the politics were largely overshadowed by the mess.

Though party officials and precinct leaders assured people waiting in line that everyone would get in, the crowds eventually were so overwhelming that many precincts already had met and selected delegates while long lines of people unwittingly waited patiently outside for a chance to be counted.

http://www.dailycamera.com/local-electi ... tic-caucus

Massive turnout overwhelms Idaho Democratic caucus

Bill Dentzer, political reporter for the Idaho Statesman, talks with Rachel Maddow about the overwhelming number of people who showed up for a Democratic caucus of unprecedented size.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 0509891763

Early reports showed that Sanders won 79 percent of caucuses in rural counties in the heavily rural Midwestern state. More than 40,000 Kansans showed up for this year’s caucuses, which was an increase in turnout of about 10% compared to turnout in the previously record-breaking 2008 election. The state’s Democratic Party officially called the state for Sanders at 8:35 PM Eastern time.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-wins-kansas/

PORTLAND, Maine —A record number of Maine Democrats took part in the presidential caucuses on Sunday.

They gathered at hundreds of locations across Maine and chose Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by a 2-1 margin over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Party officials said more than 46,000 people took part in the caucuses.

The turnout was overwhelming, especially in Portland.

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/maine-demo ... y/38370544

The presidential polls were off. Way off.

They indicated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win the state's primary election. The polls in the last week had Clinton as the victor by anywhere from 13% to 37% over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The Detroit Free Press poll taken last week had Clinton up by 25 points.

But those polls missed the enthusiasm for Sanders on the ground, especially among young people, said Mark Brewer, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party...

Consider the voter turnout shattered records when more than 2.5 million people cast ballots. Sanders won big just about everywhere, except in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. And while a big showing in Wayne County and its city of Detroit often spells victories for many candidates, the turnout was 25% in Detroit and 31% in Wayne County, while the statewide total was closer to 40%.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /81527800/

Caucus voters came out in droves on Super Tuesday to support their preferred presidential candidates. Republicans set turnout records; Democrats predicted they had their second-highest showing in state history.

The high turnout led to crowded caucus sites, long lines and a revived debate over whether it’s time for Minnesota to swap out its caucus system for the more-common — and less complex — presidential primary. Unlike a primary, where residents simply vote for their chosen candidate, a caucus is a community event in which people debate the merits of their chosen candidates before voting.

For decades, opponents of caucuses have argued the insider nature of the system discourages the average citizen from voting and that in years of high turnout, volunteers and facilities can become overwhelmed.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/02/af ... us-system/

Lincoln, NE - Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders landed a sizable Nebraska victory Saturday, cementing a 14-point lead thanks not only to favorable demographics, but to voter turnout so high it forced several precincts to relocate in search of larger space.

That said, Sanders' margin of victory pales in comparison to President Barack Obama's 35-point landslide victory in 2008. With just shy of 100% of precincts reporting Sunday morning, Sanders led the state with 57 percent to national Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 43 percent support.

http://patch.com/us/across-america/nebr ... rs-clinton

Democratic turnout was 249,215, lower than New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner had predicted, and lower than the record Democratic turnout in 2008 that gave Hillary Clinton the victory over Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont, often tells his audiences that Democrats and progressives benefit from high turnout.

“Because of a huge voter turnout ... we won," Sanders said in his New Hampshire victory speech. "Because we harnessed the energy and the excitement that the Democratic Party will need to succeed in November.”

Sanders won the primary in a landslide, more than 22 percentage points ahead of Clinton.

[While not the all time turnout, it's only the second highest for Democrats in the state]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /80247392/

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s populist and trust-busting rhetoric found receptive ears at two huge rallies heading up to Super Tuesday.

Sanders received 174,054 votes and 21 delegates, according to Politico, while Clinton received 139,338 votes and 17 delegates. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 7,669 votes, despite dropping out of the race exactly one month earlier after a poor showing in Iowa. Four other candidates with no name recognition received more than 14,000 votes.

A majority of polls had shown Clinton clinging to a small lead in Oklahoma, but Sanders’ appeal may have broken the turnout model by the look of his margin of victory...

Sanders — and record-setting Democratic primary turnout as a whole — may have benefited from independents’ first opportunity to vote in primaries on the big-tent-party’s side. The self-described “democratic socialist” won 75 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties, losing only in Oklahoma County and Osage County to Clinton.

Ironically, Clinton has raised more money in Oklahoma than all other presidential candidates combined, as reported by Oklahoma Watch before the election.

http://nondoc.com/2016/03/02/turnout-re ... -oklahoma/

SALT LAKE CITY -- It was a record night for Utah Democrats with turnout at caucuses across the state well exceeding expectations. At some caucuses, like Mountain View Elementary, there were last minute runs to get more ballots.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/22/democrat ... cials-say/

BURLINGTON, Vt. —More than twice as many Vermonters elected to cast ballots in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary compared to the Republican contest, but for the GOP that's improvement.

Given Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, there was unusually high interest in the outcome. Sanders earned 86 percent of the primary vote over Hillary Clinton.

But it turned out Democratic participation rates were off once again, while Republicans saw a 57 percent surge in ballots cast when each are compared to 2008, the last wide-open election primary.

Vermont Democratic Party Executive Director Conor Casey has a theory about that.

"I had Democrats and Independents calling me saying they'll vote in GOP primary not because they support any of the horror show candidates, but because I think they're fearful of seeing a Donald Trump at the top of the ticket in the general election," Casey said. "So they came out to vote against that."

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-gop-se ... t/38346278

Nope. Nothing to see here, folks...

Meanwhile it seems Clinton is leading in states that are considered 'Red States' [i.e. Republican states].

A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn’t take a political science expert to understand that Clinton’s current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary’s primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie’s wins were in such states.

This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton’s campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the “weakest candidate” on the Democratic side and said, “By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.” While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 26934.html

[proudfootz]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

To me that was perfect.

If things keep going as they are, Sanders will get to the convention with clout. Bunches of new or independent voters backing him. That means that the Democratic establishment will play ball. Exactly what Sanders will get depends on a lot of factors and I doubt that he will tip his hand too much in advance.

He also knows that effectively pushing his agenda depends on more than getting the nomination. The best way to do that is to get both the Oval Office and get rid of as many of the Republican obstructionist on Capitol Hill as possible.

Doing battle with the establishment is not the way to do that. And with the GOP melting down, flipping the Senate blue is feasible. Imagine if Clinton and the establishment offered to let him pick the next SCOTUS judge, as an example.

Tom

If sanders is able to bring a lot of new blood and independent voters into the Democratic fold, that might be a step towards arresting the sickening slide into reactionary politics that's been happening in the US for a while now.

[Columbus]

If sanders is able to bring a lot of new blood and independent voters into the Democratic fold, that might be a step towards arresting the sickening slide into reactionary politics that's been happening in the US for a while now.

I agree completely. But I am old and cynical about it. I clearly recall Obama doing exactly the same things. As you may have noticed, it didn't work out well.

That's why I think the best solution to the sickening slide is for Clinton and Sanders to team up. They could get the power back from the GOP obstructionists.
With the solid backing of the Democratic party and the disarray of the Republican party, it is even possible that Sanders could reach the Trump supporters in sufficient numbers to radically alter Washington DC. Sanders policies are much better for Joe blue collar, struggling to survive in the global economic world. But he will have to reach them first.

I don't think that can possibly happen if Sanders is fighting the Democratic establishment. Nor do I think he will accomplish much if he squeaks out the presidency and Capitol Hill remains the same or gets worse.

Tom

[OlivierK]

Meanwhile it seems Clinton is leading in states that are considered 'Red States' [i.e. Republican states].

A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn’t take a political science expert to understand that Clinton’s current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary’s primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie’s wins were in such states.

This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton’s campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the “weakest candidate” on the Democratic side and said, “By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.” While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 26934.html

Why do political commentators demean themselves by writing that Clinton (the Deomcratic candidate to the right) is doing better in states that vote more to the right is a "surprising dynamic"? That's just an admission of ignorance on the pundit's part.

Clinton would have fit right into the Republican party at the time of Bush I. Had the GOP not lost its collective mind since, she'd fit right in now, and the fact she would appeal to Democratic voters in conservative states more that Sanders is about as sure a bet as you get in politics.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Clinton would have fit right into the Republican party at the time of Bush I. Had the GOP not lost its collective mind since, she'd fit right in now, and the fact she would appeal to Democratic voters in conservative states more that Sanders is about as sure a bet as you get in politics.

This may be true. Would you say, then, that Utah and Idaho are the exceptions which prove the rule? Or are they sufficiently exceptional that we ought to jettison this generalization?

[OlivierK]

No generalisation's perfect, but I'd be more prepared to describe Sanders winning Utah as "surprising" than Clinton winning in the South. Maybe Utah just has problems with the idea of a woman as president? Could be anything; I'm not familiar enough, but I know that Mormonism isn't the most female-friendly religion. Utah and Idaho are also very white, which is in Bernie's favour.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Utah and Idaho are also very white, which is in Bernie's favour.

That's weird that it's breaking out along those lines. It's not as if Clinton is any less white than Sanders is. They're a pasty couple of crackers.

[Hardcoreathiest]

oh please, these are all such terrible people for president. What is wrong with democracy that the good and intelligent candidates are defeated by these useless democratic and republican Narcissists !

[OlivierK]

Utah and Idaho are also very white, which is in Bernie's favour.

That's weird that it's breaking out along those lines. It's not as if Clinton is any less white than Sanders is. They're a pasty couple of crackers.

Sure, but...

[proudfootz]

If sanders is able to bring a lot of new blood and independent voters into the Democratic fold, that might be a step towards arresting the sickening slide into reactionary politics that's been happening in the US for a while now.

I agree completely. But I am old and cynical about it. I clearly recall Obama doing exactly the same things. As you may have noticed, it didn't work out well.

That's why I think the best solution to the sickening slide is for Clinton and Sanders to team up. They could get the power back from the GOP obstructionists.
With the solid backing of the Democratic party and the disarray of the Republican party, it is even possible that Sanders could reach the Trump supporters in sufficient numbers to radically alter Washington DC. Sanders policies are much better for Joe blue collar, struggling to survive in the global economic world. But he will have to reach them first.

I don't think that can possibly happen if Sanders is fighting the Democratic establishment. Nor do I think he will accomplish much if he squeaks out the presidency and Capitol Hill remains the same or gets worse.

Tom

I agree - they should work together, and their supporters should work together.

It seems pretty much agreed that larger voter turnout generally favors the Democratic candidates. Sanders is reaching out to a lot of people who have been feeling ignored by the way things have been run by the parties.

Win or lose, maybe the Democratic party could learn something from this grass roots thing.

[proudfootz]

Meanwhile it seems Clinton is leading in states that are considered 'Red States' [i.e. Republican states].

A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn’t take a political science expert to understand that Clinton’s current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary’s primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie’s wins were in such states.

This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton’s campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the “weakest candidate” on the Democratic side and said, “By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.” While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 26934.html

Why do political commentators demean themselves by writing that Clinton (the Deomcratic candidate to the right) is doing better in states that vote more to the right is a "surprising dynamic"? That's just an admission of ignorance on the pundit's part.

Clinton would have fit right into the Republican party at the time of Bush I. Had the GOP not lost its collective mind since, she'd fit right in now, and the fact she would appeal to Democratic voters in conservative states more that Sanders is about as sure a bet as you get in politics.

Pundits have a job to do, filling in a certain amount of column inches a day - or posing as 'experts' on the various analysis programs in the 24/7 news cycle. Like economists, it doesn't seem to matter much if they are wrong or right. They'll be asked their opinion no matter what.

It does seem like the Democratic leadership is rushing into the vacuum created by the Republican party's abandonment of conservatism for extremism.

Meanwhile someone like Sanders can step into the role of the traditional Democratic role.

[Thommo]

.

[proudfootz]

Apparently there's something up in New York...

Voter registrations are surging in Erie County in anticipation of the most significant New York presidential primaries in a generation on April 19.

Friday is the last day to register to vote before the primary, and voters can only do that by mail, given that the Erie County Board of Elections is closed for Good Friday.

But as of midday Thursday, Democrats – who long have held a huge registration advantage in the county – had registered 3,345 new voters in the county since Dec. 1 of last year, up from 1,237 from the same period a year earlier. Republicans, meanwhile, registered 1,606 new voters, up from 776 a year earlier.

Leaders from both parties said the surge of registrations is just the first sign of increased interest in the New York primaries, which – for the first time in years – promise to result in meaningful outcomes in the races for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations.

The primary calendar and the state of the two nomination battles practically guarantee a higher level of interest in the New York races, which, party leaders said, may very well prompt visits to Buffalo by Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton; her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; Republican front-runner Donald Trump and other candidates.

<link>

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/ ... y-20160324

[Boyle]

Utah and Idaho are also very white, which is in Bernie's favour.

That's weird that it's breaking out along those lines. It's not as if Clinton is any less white than Sanders is. They're a pasty couple of crackers.

You see it a bit on places like reddit where it's not so much the whiteness as it is just being appalled by another Clinton. Or that Hillary is a woman, in some cases. It's very weird to see people vacillate between Trump and Sanders. The reason I've seen is that they're both outsiders and aren't afraid to speak their minds, their actual policies be damned. Hillary is offensive in that she is so obviously a politician. It isn't about the issues, it's about the people. That may be why Utah went the way it did for Sanders. Or it could be simple sexism, like Oliver stated, I dunno.

[proudfootz]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.