2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe meme about Bernie not getting voters out...Well there's a flip side.
Clinton is also running and she's not generating turn out either.
To blame Bernie and let her off the hook is overlooking a major problem.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
thereismore
(13,326 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The Turnout Will Be BIG on one side... or the other depending upon who is Dem Nominee... 
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Although I've read different numbers, Bernie comes out on top for popular vote in the primaries so far. Blaming Bernie is just plain mean.
LyndaG
(683 posts)They turn out in huge numbers to the rallies, but then they don't bother to vote?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... that HRC didn't campaign on the idea that she would be bringing in droves of first-time voters.
Bernie did. And they didn't show up - as he assured everyone they would.
freddyt
(27 posts)...that low turn out of first-time voters won't affect Hillary's chances.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)We heard for months, from Bernie and his supporters, that first-time voters inspired by Bernie's message would come out in droves to support him. That was to be the evidence that "the Revolution" was real, and those who had under-estimated Bernie's appeal would be proven wrong once and fir all.
It didn't happen. It's not happening now. And it won't happen.
Responding with the classic "But what about HER!?!" doesn't work here. Hillary wasn't the one who promised to deliver new voters in record numbers. Bernie built his campaign on that promise - and he's failed miserably.
The great army of "revolutionaries" never showed up.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And if Hillary is not trying to spread a message to bring in new voters, she's not a very good politician.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I'm sure HRC would love to see new voters showing up - so would we all.
That doesn't change the fact that Bernie's entire campaign has been premised on his ability to bring them in, his constant harping on the idea that first-time voters, those who had given up on the entire process, would hear his message and rally to his side. We were told that the politically disenchanted would suddenly be moved to come out and support him.
They didn't. He failed. His "message" didn't inspire the masses as promised.
This was not an "oh, by the way, I'll bring in some new voters, too" comment on Bernie's part. It has been the cornerstone of his campaign, and the constant mantra of his supporters. The "Revolution" would manifest itself with record numbers of first-time voters showing up to prove Bernie's message had been heard, and was being responded to.
It's turned out to be the "Revolution" that never was, and Bernie is now shown to be just another politician who greatly over-estimated his own appeal.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think you understand the term "more votes thsn Trump."
And, even if he uktimately fails to increase turnout in the iverall sense I sure appreciate your snarky insults aimed at the efforts at someone who is trying to revitalize the democratic process...We need more people who bravely champion the cause of discouraging citizen involvement.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... bring out first-time voters who never voted before because they're inspired by Bernie's message.
It has nothing to do with Trump. Nothing.
It has to do with Bernie's campaign being premised on those droves of first-time voters he assured everyone would show up to support him.
Those voters didn't show up.
I'm sorry if you think that irrefutable fact is "snark".
.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)When the DNC along with the MSM proclaims on a daily basis that Hillary Clinton has the nomination by rote of super delegates, no matter what the popular vote says, it's ugly.
Give her the damn primary, she and the democratic party will lose the general. I'm sure you will be fine.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... or the DNC, or the MSM, just because Bernie couldn't deliver what he'd promised all along.
Hill will win the GE just fine. No worries there.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'd say you deliberately being disingenuous. Maybe you are.
There is a GOP candidate who is generating excitement, attracting new voters into the GOP primaries, and, so far, running the table in the GOP primaries. He's touted as a phenomena.
There is a Democratic candidate who is generating excitement, IS attracting new voters, and in one of the first three primaries got MORE VOTES than the excitement-generating GOP candidate.
And yet you sit there on your puffy pedestal and claim that the Democratic candidate is failing. Worse yet, you sneer at him for even TRYING to generate new voters and new enthusiasm.
That attitude may be fun, but it is going to continue to make the Democratic Party increasingly irrelevant.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)The fact that Bernie got more votes then Trump doesn't change the fact that overall participation was DOWN.
So where were those first-time voters that Bernie was going to draw out? If he'd attracted first-timers, participation would have been UP over previous years, i.e. usual primary goes PLUS newcomers.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He made progress....Did not hit the bulls-eye of massive new voter numbers, but had a measure of success...and at least is TRYING to revitalize democracy and participation. Deserves praise for that, not insults.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Or that you think citing facts is an insult.
Saying that BS "did not hit the bulls-eye of massive new voter numbers" is rather a glaring understatement. He didn't even come close to hitting the target, no less the bulls-eye.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The Redheaded Guy
(90 posts)How very..... well, you figure it out.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Bernie had one opponent. It made a big vote total an easier proposition. Usually that early in the race you still have three to five decent candidates.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Bernie is not turning out the vote the way he implied. I am not going to disagree with you.
But you are ignoring, and I suspect purposefully because I know you aren't stupid, Clinton is really going to have trouble winning in Novemeber.
She is not turning out the vote either and I don't see how she is going to right the ship in the ensuing months.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)And I am not concerned about getting the vote out in November. I am totally confident that the Democrat will prevail.
What I think Bernie supporters should recognize is that the massive anger among voters - the ones who were going to come out in droves and take a stand behind Bernie because they are so fed-up - just isn't there in the way Bernie thought it was. He premised his campaign on tapping-into that "groundswell" of anger, and he failed. His message was certainly clear enough - but it looks like voters just aren't as fed-up with things as he assumed they are.
Is there anger and frustration out there among Democratic voters? For sure there is. But that anger is directed at Republicans. Democrats who won't get into the fight for or against one of their own in a primary contest WILL show up to vote for their own and against the GOP.
Despite the vitriol spewed by political junkies like us on political websites, the average Democrat doesn't see either Bernie or Hillary as "the enemy". The enemy is whoever the Republicans put up as their nominee - and I've no doubt that Democrats will come out to crush that enemy when the time comes.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)You are also failing to recognize that a lot of people don't like or trust Clinton.
Finally you are failing to recognize that Democrats are a minority percentage in the country.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... because it doesn't exist.
Those first time voters that BS was going to bring out in droves were the anti-establishment people, the previously apathetic who, now that they had a leader in Bernie, were going to rise up with him and demand sweeping change to the political system and the Democratic Party.
Maybe people just aren't as dissatisfied with things as Bernie keeps telling us they are.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Either that or you are not paying attention.
Trump = reflection of the anti-establishment mood on the right <<< Here's a hint for you, he's winning his primary so far.
Sanders = reflection of the anti-establishment mood on the left <<< Another hint, he has beat all predictions to become a serious contender.
Open your eyes and clean out your ears, silly.
Duh.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The only comments I have seen about Bernie and turnout are related to this bogus claims that he is gonna pass all this pie in the sky stuff because we are going to have a massive number of people turning out (and apparently scaring the GOP into going along). What a bunch of bunk.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think that should be the New Democratic platform.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)nothing like low expectations to GOTV.
Do you even hear yourself?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)It's more a matter of the high expectations Bernie promised from day one. Bernie's "revolution" was going to manifest itself with droves of first-time voters - finally "inspired to vote" by Bernie - coming out to support him.
Perhaps BS should have thought twice about basing his entire campaign on all those new voters he was going to draw out of their apathy - you know, the ones who never materialized.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)There has only been one primary and two caucuses: one caucus in a state where voters are transient and caucusing is relatively new. Record turnout was recorded in the one primary in a purple state.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
napi21
(45,806 posts)so they're just going to vote for whichever one wins. I honestly think turnout will be much better in the General. People recognize that not only is the Presidency going to change, but the SCOTUS, which is MORE IMPORTANT because it's effect are for the next 30-40 years, is going to be determined by who's elected President. We MUST keep hammering that home, along with the fact that neither Dem candidate wil be able to accomplish their goals if we don't ALSO give them a House & Senate who will work with them.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)But it still remains, of those who are waiting for the big race and sitting the primaries out, you can't pin it on Bernie. He's got those numbers over Hillary. Which makes you wonder - why aren't her supporters getting out there and making the win all that much bigger, and the party base larger?
PatrickforO
(14,581 posts)It was low in IA, in NH and in NV, wasn't it? On the Dem side. Why is this when there's so much at stake? The Supreme Court alone is a huge deal. We've lost a lot of seats this last decade, and I blame that on the Third Way. It is really hard for me to get behind candidates who support or have supported things that help corporations enhance profits at the expense of the middle class. And just to be 'socially liberal' isn't good enough any more.
How do we get people out? I got a call tonite from the Bernie campaign and I told the girl we were caucusing for him, and so we will. Maybe the GOTV efforts on the part of both campaigns are beginning to work.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)The debates on wacko nights at wacko times sue didn't help. DWS was responsible for the debacle in 2014 and will be if we are not lucky in 2016.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... were telling us last summer - long before even the first debate - that his "message" was going to bring out droves of first-time voters.
We were told repeatedly that polls showing Bernie behind HRC were dead wrong, because they weren't tapping-into first-time voters who weren't on the pollsters' lists of previous voters.
We were told that the crowds at Bernie rallies were just the tip of the iceberg - there were masses of new voters who would show up in Iowa, NH and beyond to support their hero. This wasn't a mere campaign - this was a Revolution! consisting of millions of people who were going to take a stand once and for all!
So they didn't show up because the debates were on the wrong nights?
The Great Revolution was thwarted by DWS?
All I can say is that if the American revolutionaries were anything like Bernie's revolutionaries, we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen" at baseball games.
jillan
(39,451 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)yet after that primary Rachel was on M$NBC pushing this narrative that the overall turnout was low, and that it was a problem for Bernie. Actually, at least in that primary, it was on Hillary.
We'lll see how the other states unfold. I think Hillary would bring some women to the polls, but overall would get a very low turnout. Bernie would bring people who don't traditionally vote in Democratic primaries to show up to vote for him in the general election.
We'd better get the turnout thing fiured out, because Trump will get people to the polls, which IMO woould not bode well for nominating Hillary.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Math. 
Also: "Top Democrats allied with Hillary Clinton have quietly formed a $25 million nonprofit organization aimed at boosting the turnout of African American and Latino voters, two constituencies key to her presidential bid.
The group, called Every Citizen Counts, is being advised by Guy Cecil, who also serves as the chief strategist for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, as the Associated Press first reported."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/clinton-allies-launch-new-nonprofit-group-to-mobilize-african-american-and-latino-voters/
Clinton isn't going to sit back and not try to juice voter turnout.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)People don't get motivated to support corporate candidates, which is why there are now as many so-called independents as there are people in either party.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"Top Democrats allied with Hillary Clinton have quietly formed a $25 million nonprofit organization aimed at boosting the turnout of African American and Latino voters, two constituencies key to her presidential bid.
The group, called Every Citizen Counts, is being advised by Guy Cecil, who also serves as the chief strategist for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, as the Associated Press first reported."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JI7
(89,254 posts)where many people felt strongly about one over another(s).
in this case the feeling between sanders and clinton is not so different as they see between sanders/clinton and the republicans(especially trump).
so in a way i think Trump has got a lot of democrats to see the big goal as being in november and making sure whoever is the dem nominee wins.
and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
either way we need to work hard in voter turnout. hopefully the low numbers just means whoever ends up being the nominee will keep an eye on making sure we do get the votes out in november.
you wouldn't know this based on the internet. but this is why it's good to take time away and actually get out there and talk to people sometimes.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I haven't found one person in RL who will admit to liking HRC.
Grant it, I'm in Texas. The Clinton hate (in both parties) here is strong.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I don't hang with them, I'm just surrounded by them.
Get off your high horse.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That is extremely populated. It's got plenty of downsides, but I grew up here so I am used to it.
Sorry you're surrounded by assholes! That would be pretty rough for me!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)one of the few liberal areas in the state. 3 million people who are mostly not fond of any Clinton. Surrounding this city are hateful bigoted racist assholes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm not used to that at all. It sort of makes me nervous. And the dark and quiet.
I guess I'll always be a wicked city woman!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)of any potential success. Their problem is that the GOPukes are generating steaming piles of voters with the clown car and the Democratic Party is having trouble filling the hall.
If, as DWS and the others want, Sanders is defeated how is the Establishment going to overcome this voter apathy by the time of the GE?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)and Sanders so far who's had the biggest turnout of anyone. That supposedly changes on Saturday. Everyone stop this blah-blah until Saturday then!
brooklynite
(94,624 posts)She's building her coalition from the existing elements of the Democratic Party electorate.
It was the Sanders folks who promised millions of disaffected non-voters would join in.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)So its a goid thing to rely on a shrinking core of existing Democrsts, and its a bad thing to try and encourage new supporters and expand the base of voters and participation.
Sometimes this kind of thinking makes me feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole. Up is down and down is up.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)as long as we don't upset the gravy train.
I see a rude awakening coming to some very smug people.
brooklynite
(94,624 posts)Doesn't explain why the grandiose promise of the Sanders supporters hasn't happened.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"No we can't because..."
"Don't get enthusiastic because..."
People only like him because he's a cult leader who promises ponies....."
Which all translates into "Don't vote because it's useless. The only value in our votes is to stop the GOP. Nothing positive will come of it."
Same set of excuses whether the Democrats are the minority party, have the Presidency, are the majority in one chamber of Congress, or even the WH and BOTH chambers of Congress. Same old crap, year after year.
So we end up with continual advances of the GOP agenda, stalemates, gridlock or, at best, supposed "Democrat" policies that are tailored to the same interests as the GOP. Such as Obamacare, which forces people to buy private insurance, but does not provide a public option.
And when people like Sanders come along, who wants to TRY and reverse that, and DOES generate enthusiasm and potential new voters, and the possibility of expansion of the Democratic base and power.....The so-called realists SNEER and try to Stifle it and denigte it.
And the logical next stop is President Trump.....And one again you and your self fulfilling prophecies will once again come true.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)long term I mean
In my state the Rs are a dying breed and the Dems are BARELY MAINTAINING and none of us expects this to remain for long. Dems will start to bleed people to indies soon, in large numbers. The trickle has been ongoing for a while.
Perhaps someday all states will need to go for OPEN PRIMARIES becuase the majority are the independent voters. (Not to be confused with the Independent party... yeah, we have one named that way, and more than a few made the mistake of registering independents when they meant decline to state)
Then again, that would be healthier for democracy and would force standard bearers to actually take that into account.
Amused.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I guess they aren't into voting, just going to rallies! 
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)I wonder who counts the votes.....
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)that we get SC in the GE...
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Bernie set an alltime record for single-candidate turnout in New Hampshire. He beat everyone, ever. And of course he's still ahead in total actual votes cast. It's incredible how, with Sanders having taken the lead in actual votes, the Clinton camp and the media have so succesfully turned the narrative on its head based on what they (say they) expect to happen in the future.
It's totally irrelevant whether they are wrong or right. They may well be right. This is supposed to be democracy. Shut up with the dubious science (and it is highly dubious on primaries and caucuses, but it shouldn't matter if it was or wasn't). Get out and campaign for whomever you like, talk about the issues. Enough of the predictions, the numbers, and especially the personalized bullshit. Let the people vote in peace. Encourage them! Don't tell them it's over, there's no point. There's what's depressing turnout more than anything, and it's the Clinton camp that's pushing it. (Also, this is mostly a meme. Barely anyone's voted and the turnouts are totally okay so far. Let us see. Que sera, sera.)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)if they can't get enough voters out to win the democratic nomination, it's probably not worth arguing whether they can get enough voters out to win the general election.
FangedNoumenom
(145 posts)Worst DNC chair in party history, IMO.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's not good.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)
Vinca
(50,285 posts)If you attribute all of the 2008 enthusiasm to Obama and expect Bernie to come up with the same thing, it's clear Hillary is pretty dull. Bernie's numbers are average numbers for an election. Hillary's are probably similar to her first run. 2008 was unusual because Barack Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of candidate. Don't blame Bernie for not being Obama. Hillary could always try something novel, like giving an interesting speech that seemed to come from the heart.
