Reality Check - The Sanders loss.

First my bias. I ( an Oregon Dem) did not so much vote against Hillary ( she would have been competent, level headed and experienced as Pres. ), as I voted for Sanders in 2016 ( then Jill Stein) as protests against a coordinated but still unexposed effort by the Democratic party establishment to coronate Hillary. The Clinton 'donation' to the party and subsequent conflict of interest was still undisclosed, as was the Hillary 'right of refusal' for DNC campaign party Chair, but I felt something was amiss with the process and the party that created it.

So I get the anger. I share the outrage that the DNC begged for this conflict and fermented this toxic environment and division. The process was littered with a series of 'tilts' towards well funded mainstream established candidates, namely Clinton, But NOBODY 'fixed' this primary election result against Sanders. Nobody could. Its a series of 50 state contests set up the rules of which are determined by state parties so most of what constitutes evidence of 'rigging', happened long before anyone knew who the opposition to Clinton would be, including the 'front-loading' of red state primaries.

Fact is that the Clinton campaign had a campaign presence in each of these states from 2008. They knew the players, the rules, and had a gameplan and lawyers to use their influence to set up these contests to ensure an early nominee victory and unified convention, knowing that was most likely to be them. That was also representative of the thinking of the day. Unity early means less division at the convention and less loss treasure on the primary process. Nobody wanted another convention like 1968, or an other nominee like McGovern who lacked broad appeal beyond the base [Thus the increase in unpledged or 'superdelegates' from 12% in 2008 to 15% in 2016] It was the only campaign that was already on the ground and in the committee rooms when the rules were being decided and it was an easy sell.

No doubt that there were a series of biased statements by a few staffers DNC, or by established democratic operatives some decisions that impacted, in specific states and no doubt that there was a culture in the DNC that resented Sanders using this party as his personal tool to national prominence, treated Sanders as a joke, and a lightweight internally. He wasn't a 'real Democrat' and had no loyalty to it.

1.There was the effort in Brooklyn to purge voters, but those voters were older ones who had not voted in years, not newer registrants likely to vote for Sanders and that county went for Hillary as did every other one in the city. 'No rigging'
2. If we are to use the leaked emails of the DNC and other sources as evidence for scope and intent at the DNC , we must use the same trail to show limitations in scope an intent. So those emails showed so lousy ideas to 'tilt' including an effort to target Sanders faith in Kentucky, and they were shot down by superiors. No 'rigging' there!

3. There was a spat or two between the Sander campaign and the DNC but none that could have serious impact on voter behavior.

 

Now some facts. Clinton won 2842 delegates ( 59% ) of which 572 were unpledged, to Sanders 1865 (39%) of which 42 were unpledged. She won 34 contests to his 23 . She got around 16,950,000 (55%)votes to his 13,206,400(43%). Stats come from How Hillary Clinton Won the Democratic Nomination Over Bernie Sanders - WSJ.com I rounded up for convenience.
1.Clinton got 76% of the black vote while Sanders got 23% but they split the vote evenly among young blacks 45%Age and race in the 2016 Democratic primary | YouGov
2. In Open primaries, Sanders got 63% of the independent vote, while Clinton got 34%, but Clinton got 64% of registered Dems and 36% and there were a lot more of them

3. Sanders won overwhelmingly ( 12 for Sanders only 2 for Clinton) in caucus states which yield proportional results in several levels of process and where more enthusiastic and engaged participants sway the outcome. It takes a lot more time than simply presenting a finished ballot.

4. Breakdown by ideology. Very liberal 49% Clinton - 49% Sanders (equal split!) , somewhat liberal 56% Clinton -43% Sanders. Moderate 60% Clinton-37% Sanders. In no ideological category did Sanders have an advantage

5. Breakdown by Age. 17-29 Sanders 72% -Clinton 28%, but 65 or older reverses this 71% to 27% and we know that young folks just don't show up as reliably as older voters.

6. By education. Clinton will be the first percentage each time. High School or less 63%-35%, Some college 53%-46%, College Grad 53%-45%, Post Grad 60%-39%

7. Income. Clinton will be the first percentage each time because she won in the all. Under 50,000 60%-42%, 50,000-100,000 54%-45%, Over 100,000 58%-41%

She won in urban and suburban areas by huge margins, but she lost ground comparatively from 2008 against Obama in White Rural counties from 67% to 40% and college towns from 40% to 29% showing the weaknesses that would predict Trumps victory

The take-away is that despite the Clinton juggernaut advantages funding, and campaign infrastructure, Sanders did not lose this nomination because of DNC rigging but because of his own weaknesses as a candidate. Obama faced the same 'coronation' but he won! Sanders lost in urban areas. He lost the black vote. He lost in suburbia. He lost older voters. He lost among moderate Dems and slightly liberal Dems and even very liberal Dems. He lost in every single economic class including the poor. You can't rely on caucus states and young college kids and independents who vote in open primaries, and then excuse your loss on a conspiracy of Superdelegates ( Clinton beat him by literally every measure as well) , Debbie Wasserman, and some staff in DNC headquarters who sent sneering emails to each other!

 

Don't forget that CNN gave Hillary the questions that were going to be asked during a Democratic presidential primary debate that Bernie was participating in.

Also the NYT allowed the DNC and Hillary campaign to approve any news story that was going to be published that mentioned Hillary's name.

Basically the hacked DNC and Podesta emails that were published by Wikileaks exposed Hillary being crooked and the DNC as a corrupt third world political organization and CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, ABC News, NBC News were all in collusion with the Hillary campaign or the DNC or both.

 

A CNN reporter gave Hillary one question to be asked, but CNN is not connected with the DNC, or any state party. Media preferential treatment is not within the scope of this thread.

As for this notion NYT allowed either DNC or Hillary to approve news stories, I need evidence and links please. The rest of what you write is gross exaggeration and RW partisan puffery which I completely dismiss.

 

Obvious you read very few of the hacked DNC and Podesta emails that were published by Wikileaks.

 

All you have to do is either link the ones that say what you purport them to, or quote them. You made the claim, back it up.

 

Joe Biden is no doubt the DNC anointed!

 

Well I don't thin he is, but even if he were, it would not represent nearly the problem to other candidates. 2016 was completely unique. The Hillary Clinton campaign had all the advantages that our process reserves for an incumbency, without the disadvantages of one. She had the nationwide connections, the 50 state campaign presence, the four year head start on fundraising, and name familiarity and popularity of a First Couple to do all this work, without either one of them being stuck in the oval office, forced into potentially unpopular executive decisions.

Remember at the start of the campaign in 2016 Bill was considered her best asset! He was very popular, a superb stump speaker, and he was probably the best campaigner in southern states and red territory The Demcratic party ever had! To this day, I have never seen anyone mix homespun humor, southern charm, democratic party values, with a phenomenal ability to explain complex policy or economics simply and clearly. He could have a town hall eating out of his hand, and take the most stubborn conservative and disarm him in the course of an hour. But for the fact he was too close and too invested, to keep his foot out of his mouth, (and the Me T0 movement was already growing) Hillary would have been able to use him a lot better down south.

Every other potential candidate besides O'Malley, was scared off by the sheer magnitude of the challenge. Its like entering poker game and starting with a third less chips than the most experienced player at the table. The Democratic party establishment was complicit in handing Bill and Hillary even more chips because everyone knew them, felt the party was in safe reliable and electable hands post Obama.

Biden has very little of that going for him. He's an old fashioned establishment liberal of a bygone age with the connections all right, he did not have a campaign structure in place from 4 years ago and Jill Biden is not a former President. Biden's beginning to show some signs that he's not as sharp as he used to be and I don't think the DNC without Debbie Wasserman is not nearly as stupid and clumsy.

 

Bernie is an extremely weak candidate.

"Democratic Socialism" does not have anything beyond fringe appeal, and never will

 

No. that overstates it the other way. He was a candidate with weaknesses to be sure which I noted.. , but that does not mean he was a 'very weak' candidate. He was actually a very shrewd campaigner. Let's look at this glass half full. Without accepting any Superpac money and that 'socialist' label. , he was able to survive through the California primary, in a party to which he did not belong, with very little establishment support, or campaign presence outside Vermont, or much name familiarity.

He won the following caucuses Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Utah, North Dakoda,

He won the following primaries. Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Vermont, 'Democrats abroad', Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Indiana, Oregon, Montana.

I would call Sanders the ultimate opportunist. Where-ever Clinton had a vulnerability, wherever she showed weakness, Sanders grabbed the chances that were there to grab. He snagged the communications union endorsement, The Iron Workers Union, National Nurses United, and the postal workers union as well as the endorsement of Move-on and Democracy for America. What may have been most significant was that Sanders was able to keep the AFL-CIO from endorsing Hillary early on. They chose to stay neutral.

It was a remarkable achievement. He took that 'socialist' label and wore it, proving that republican efforts to sneer at every progressive idea by calling it 'socialism' was coming to an end. Progressive candidates could win, and that means big progressive donors need not feel their checks were being thrown into a fire.

 

Progressive candidates can not win general elections outside of the most progressive areas of the country.

Their policies do not hold up under scrutiny, and their tiny presence will soon be shoved back into the closet.

 

As a general rule, you are right and I firmly believe that Sanders would have lost more convincingly against Trump than Hillary. But there are the occasional exceptions.
Ever hear of a Senator George McGovern ( By the way, he was a literal member of the progressive party working for Henry Wallace for about ten years before he registered Democrat). He won general elections in South Dakota, an overwhelmingly republican stronghold even back then, when he won his first general election in 1956 to the US House over a four term republican incumbent. Harold O. Lovre, He won relection over republican two term governor Joe Foss. He relinquished his House seat to run for Senate but lost in 1960 to republican incumbent Karl Mundt. In four years he ran for the other Senate seat and beat republican Senator Joseph H. Bottum to become the first Democratic Senator from South Dakota in 26 years. He won another general election over another former republican governor Archie M. Gubbrud and another in 1974 over military hero Leo K. Thorsness. Finally the Reagan Revolution took him down in 1980. They don't get much more progressive than George outside the northeast, and South Dakota sure ain't near Massachusetts..

 

Are you talking about the same George McGovern that lost to Richard Nixon in 1972 by the greatest landslide in recent history?

 

Absolutely, and we Dems are going to lose to Trump and see the end of American Democracy if we don't realize that.

Now is not the time to go off on experimental tangents. We have to realize that Trump IS an "existential threat" to this nation.

 

Trump isn't an existential threat.

You'll lose if you don't offer sound policy that reflects the wants and needs of the majority of Americans, but go ahead and stick to the fearmongering.

 

But back in the day America wasn't nearly as polarized.

I'm not familiar with the particulars of McGovern, but a reputable man in a rural state can beat the odds.

 

Also democrats were not so far right of center. Today JFK would be considered a right wing extremist.

 

The common folly of liberals today is that they believe the condition of the poor is a common, institutionalized occurrence, instead of an anomaly

 

No matter what the left thinks with their utopian ideology, it is not practical and ignores human nature. No matter what they do there will ALWAYS be poor.

 

He got about 25% in the primaries (a 17-way race with no major media effort to push anyone to the top. Sanders starts with more support than that.

 

McGovern was a progressive DEMOCRAT, fighting for the soul of his party and the nation in time of war. Sanders is just using a party he does not believe in, to further an admittedly admirable ideological agenda. Sanders will get as much loyalty from Dems, as he has given Dems. He was a protest vote, an act of rebellion, and now he is yesterdays' leftovers, not a presidential candidate for 202O. He already peaked four years ago, and he's not going any further up. He will not be the party nominee and it isn't because anything is 'rigged'. He can't broaden his appeal outside of the box he was constrained in last time and that box is crowded with several younger, more appealing progressives.

 

Debbie WS admitted that super delegates were designed to thwart any attempts by a grass roots candidate to win the nomination.
Hillary had it in the bag before the first primary vote was cast.

 

She 'had it in the bag' in 2008 too - until she didn't. They aren't particularly new, nor 'super' . The number went up from 12% in 2008, to 15% of leaving 85% to be won by anyone like sanders who waltzes into a primary and starts seriously winning. . They have existed since 1980 gradually adding more with each election, and they went for Obama by 2-1 rather than Hillary in 2008 with 100 not pledging before the actual convention at all, and another 50 that switched the moment Obama got a majority of the pledged delegates. If Sanders had begun winning big primary states, like Obama did, many of those unpledged delegates would have done the same thing to Hillary Clinton again that they did when voters picked the neophyte Freshman Senator nobody knew over the Clinton Juggernaut in 2008. I would be happy with about 8-10% myself. I do like the following reform though, endorsed by Bernie Sanders
"The biggest change in the nominating process is that superdelegates are no longer allowed to cast their votes on the first ballot measure at the convention, unless a candidate has already secured the preset majority of pledged delegates during primaries and caucuses. If a candidate fails to secure a majority of those delegates, then in a second round of voting the superdelegates will come into play. This, however, has never happened."

 

I think it was in New Hampshire or Vermont where Bernie knocked the snot out of her for a net gain of 1 delegate.

 

Knocking the snot out of someone in the wrong state, does that regardless of unpledged delegates.. You have to win the big ones like California, Florida, New York, Michigan Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas. That was always his problem. Those unpledged will do as they please, unless you tame them by winning the states that mean something in numbers of pledged delegates. . Not a lot of them will go against their states clear voter choice.