2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie’s Path to Victory
For a few years now I have fervently hoped that either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. I havent cared much which one. Each of them has shown great courage in standing up against established powers in the United States, in an attempt to make life better for the majority of American citizens. They are both especially concerned about the economic status of our country.
Income inequality has reached obscene proportions in our country, levels not seen since just before the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which was followed by the Great Depression. As most of us know, one of our greatest presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was elected in 1932 to deal with that Depression, and he did so with the establishment of a great variety of programs which remained in place for many years. Many of those programs involved controls on the financial industry, which was to a large extent behind the Crash of 1929 and is similarly responsible for our economic woes in recent years, as they have lobbied for relaxation of one control after another of their freedom to ruin our economy while becoming filthy rich themselves in the process. One of the main controls that was destroyed was Glass-Steagall, which was essentially repealed in 1999 by the signature of President Bill Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are committed to restoring Glass-Steagall and many other measures that would help to restore income equality in our country. Bill Clinton denies that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the financial crash of 2008 or our current economic woes, and Hillary Clinton will not pledge to re-instate it. As we all know, her vast campaign treasure chest is largely funded by Wall Street, which would certainly not support her if they thought there was any likelihood that she would attempt to restore Glass-Steagall. That is one of the main reasons that I support Bernie for President, but there are many others. In short, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have shown a long history of standing up against the established powers in this country, and Hillary Clinton has not.
The gender issue
From what I have seen, the gender issue is playing a huge issue in this campaign. Many people believe that electing a woman president is long overdue in this country, and that is a major reason that they support Hillary. I too would like to see a woman elected president but definitely NOT one funded by Wall Street. I get so sick of e-mails from Emilies List, which almost comes right out and says that Hillary should get the nomination because she is a woman. I hate identity politics of that kind. I wish I could see a poll of Hillary supporters that asks whether or not her gender plays a big role in their propensity to vote for her and a similar one asking the same thing about Bernie. I have little doubt what it would show.
Bernies path to victory in the Democratic primaries according to the 538 website
So obviously I was very interested when a few days ago the 538 website published a map of Bernies Narrow Path to Victory, noting what percentage of the vote he needs in every remaining state to surpass Hillary in delegate count. Of course he doesnt have to hit the target in every state to do that. He just needs to hit it on average, that is, he needs to surpass the target in some states in order to make up for the amount that he fails to meet it in other states. Let me be clear about this. These are not predictions or expectations. They are target goals that Bernie has to meet to win the nomination. The 538 predictions were quite a bit lower for Bernie in every single state. For example, Bernies target goal in Michigan was 53%. Yet, Nate Silver gave him less than a 1% chance of even winning that state, let alone achieving his target goal. Here is a quick sampling of how Bernie has done in the states that have held primaries since the map came out, compared to how his target goals are depicted by 538:
Kansas:
Target goal 56.5%;
Actual result 68%
Nebraska:
Target goal 61%
Actual result 57%
Louisiana:
Target goal 25%
Actual result 25%
Maine:
Target goal 65%
Actual result 64%
Michigan:
Target goal 53%
Actual result 51%
Mississippi:
Target goal 25%
Actual result 17%
So Bernie has made or exceeded some target goals and missed some others, but on average is very close. In turn, this means that he has exceeded expectations tremendously in the past week or so. Incidentally, my daughter and I had a disagreement about what the results would be in Michigan. She said that Bernie was going to win Michigan. I, on the other hand, looking at Nate Silvers prediction on election eve of Bernie having less than a 1 % chance of winning Michigan, and predicting in fact that he would lose by 23 percentage points, obviously had a very hard time believing that he would win it as Nate Silver has never been that far wrong in a prediction EVER. But Bernie did it, just as he has far exceeded 538s predictions in almost all state primaries since it published Bernies Narrow Path to Victory.
So where do we stand now?
So whereas Bernie has done an amazing job so far, and has far exceeded expectations in general, he still has some mighty steep obstacles to climb in order to win the nomination not the least of which is that the leadership of the Democratic Party, as well as the financial industry and most all of corporate America is rabidly against him.
It is worth noting though, that according to most polls, Bernie does very well against all of the likely Republican candidates that he might run up against better than Hillary does. He beats all of them in the Electoral College. He does especially well against Donald Trump, winning in national polls against him currently by 11% - and climbing.
Yet, despite all of this, I am still pessimistic about his chances of winning the Democratic nomination, given all the obstacles in his path. As I said, he has a very large mountain to climb.
A proposed solution
However, I have a proposed solution that I strongly believe will solve the problem. I mentioned Elizabeth Warren at the beginning of this post, largely because I believe that she holds the keys. Given the importance of the gender issue in this election, and the fact that she and Bernie have very similar views on the issues and that both stand out as perhaps the two highest level politicians in this country to repeatedly demonstrate their willingness to stand up against the established powers, I believe that at the very least she should heavily and enthusiastically endorse him and campaign for him.
Or alternatively, she could jump into the race. There is no way in hell that Hillary would win a majority of delegates against the two of them running simultaneously. They could in a sense run together, making it clear that if they could stop Hillary from winning a majority of delegates, they would combine their delegates to get it done. That means ultimately, that one would release all their delegates to vote for the other one. Bernie has repeatedly said that this election is not about him rather, it is about some extremely important issues threatening to destroy our country. So if voters in the Democratic Party are determined to have a woman president, he could release his delegates to a woman who would fight the financial powers who are destroying our country rather than pander to them. I have little doubt that Bernie would be willing to do that if it was the only way. And maybe the one of them could choose the other as their running mate, and make that public right now.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)that consists of a mea culpa and a new awareness of what's required of journalism in a resilient democracy.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Our national news media is a disgrace and a major obstacle to the election of good people to high offices.
But more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through the Internet. That's why Berie does so well among young voters.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)evolves: Whether a return to actual journalism or continued descent into lower and lower-brow entertainment.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)If Bernie has had any discussions with her about being his running mate and if she hasn't definitively turned him down, now would be the time to leak that info to the world. Saying that they've had some discussions about her being his running mate (with nothing definite stated) would definitely help the momentum.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)I hope it happens
Raster
(20,998 posts)Long time, my friend....welcome back.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)I'm really excited about Bernie's candidacy
Raster
(20,998 posts)Two Presidencies have come and gone - one selected (as you well know) and one elected (as you also well know).
We live in VERY INTERESTING TIMES.
Very, very good to see posting again.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)She won't do that -- alas, she doesn't have the guts! Senators Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, etc., etc. -- ALL OF THEM -- don't have the guts, unfortunately.
The only recent Senator who I believe may well have had the guts to endorse Bernie was the one who famously exclaimed:
"I am from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!"
Paul Wellstone, 1944 - 2002
mythology
(9,527 posts)It apparently never enters your mind that they might honestly believe Clinton to be the better nominee.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)They all either stand to gain with a win or stand to lose if they back Bernie and she wins.
If they back her and Bernie wins, Bernie embraces them. Win win for them. No question.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)I don't believe that they think that Hillary is the better candidate. It's too obvious that she is not.
But I also think it's unfair to say that it's because she doesn't have guts. She's proven that she does have lots of guts in her fights against Wall Street.
H2O Man
(73,537 posts)Great to see you!
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Glad to hear from you and hope all is very well for you & yours.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Same to you
Raster
(20,998 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)First, Warren has shown INCREDIBLE courage by NOT endorsing Clinton... the pressure on her is amazing to follow suit and she is doing it with the knowledge that IF Hillary gets in... Warren will be on the outside looking in, because the Clinton's are well known for punishing political rivals.
Second, two liberals from New England will NOT work on a national ticket.
Bernie is going to need to find someone (preferably) from the south or southwest with his ideals to be on the ticket and someone who people aren't worried about becoming president, given Bernie's age.
I think Castro is too young:
Some possibilities are: Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper, Tim Kaine (may be too establishment) Mark Warner (Same problem as Kaine)
There are others, but I think he needs to stay out of his region and balance with someone people could see in the white house.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)Bernie has gone from national unknown status to immense popularity in a relatively very short period of time. Millions of people like him because as they get to know him better they realize how caring and intelligent and courageous and honest he is. Same thing could apply to Elizabeth Warren. I don't think that all that many voters are worried about "balance" on the ticket.
Also, I think that in this case the most important and obvious type of balance needed is gender balance, since there is such a desire among large segments of Democratic voters to have a woman president.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)I still have a bias for E.Warren being Bernie's running mate. But I can get behind Nina or Tulsi with little issue.
The demographics clearly lean toward a woman VP choice but the old mantra of location, location, location died with GWB & BHO and the advent of the Internet Age. That said, for old timers, Nina coming from Ohio has the best location optics for Bernie.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)Time for change
(13,714 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)OR and WA should be good for him, but he needs them to be the kind of blowouts that Clinton is getting in the South. He also needs bigger wins in OH and PA even than he got in MI.
There is a western strategy for him (I doubt he can win CA but he can keep it close enough to be a delegate wash) but he needs the Midwest, period, including keeping IL close. Big Sky country should be a blowout, but he needs the rest of the west to be that good too.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)in the OP
The main difference is that their analysis says that to have a reasonable chance, Bernie needs to win California (as well as the rest of the West, keeping, IL, NY, NJ, CT, and RI close, and winning the rest of the country outside of the South, except for Maryland and DC).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I know it's the blackest constituency in the country but it's also the most liberal constituency in the country. If I were putting money down I'd have him taking DC.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Sanders has a decent shot at Ohio, and Illinois is not out of the question.
If he can take Ohio, he's not out of it. Not yet, anyway.
If he can also take Illinois, then this is a real race.
If he takes neither, I think he'll keep fighting, but I think it's basically over.
Gotta say, my gut says he may take Ohio.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)election officials have somehow declared that law extinct (for obvious reasons), and Bernie has a lawsuit going on that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)beaglelover
(3,477 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)in every state. For each state he doesn't win by 55% then the percentage in the remaining states goes higher.
Plus, he would have to turn hundreds of super delegates away from Hillary to him.
Neither is realistic. It just isn't going to happen.
MineralMan
(146,302 posts)Elizabeth Warren could not get on the primary ballots. The deadline for that has passed, I think in every state. The time for that would have been much earlier, and Warren decided not to run. As yet, she has not endorsed either candidate, and may well not until after the convention.
Her endorsement would probably benefit Bernie Sanders, if she made such an endorsement. Similarly, an announcement by Sanders that she would be his choice for VP would also benefit him. However, that would require Warren to agree to such a thing. She appears to have decided not to become in this primary race, so that seems unlikely.