2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders team huddles over the path forward
03/16/16
Bernie Sanders woke up in Arizona on Wednesday with what appeared to be five losses, determined to stay in the Democratic primary race.
The Vermont senator will meet with top aides later in the day in Sedona, but his chief strategist Tad Devine shot down any talk that it's a huddle about dropping out.
-------
The Sanders campaign had been hoping for an outright win in at least Missouri, but March 15 didnt figure as a decisive date on their campaign calendar. Aides have long said they wanted to survive to this point as a viable candidacy, before heading into a stretch marked by caucuses in largely white states that would enable them to build back momentum against Hillary Clinton. After that, they're hoping they can convince the Democratic superdelegates to put them over the top if they're close enough to Clinton in pledged delegates.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-next-step-220877?lo=ap_e1
Seriously, is that their strategy??? Hoping to close the gap enough to convince super delegates to jump from Hillary to Sanders, although she would still be ahead in pledged delegates? That's stealing an election and it won't happen.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)With proportional awarding of delegates, the climb form so far behind is unlikely.
It is ironic that after the number of articles and claims I have seen that Superdelegares are undemocratic, we now see a hologram with Sanders saying the equivalent of "Help me, Superdelegates, you're my only hope."
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)
The Sanders strategy makes no sense. There's no way in hell that they would be giving their support to Sanders over Hillary if she's ahead in pledged delegates. They are not even supporting him now, why would they switch allegiances under that scenario?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Man never Is, but always To be blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
I think people who are dedicated to a cause or a leader find it difficult admit when the cause has failed.
So they hope, no matter the odds.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)So it makes sense that she wouldn't overcome his lead. You seem to think Hillary is Obama, but you're sorely mistaken.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Obama was a revolutionary candidate, and the turnout in that election proves that.
The proportional awarding of delegates makes the chance of a come behind Cinderella story win very unlikely. He could win every one of the primaries until the end and if they are close wins, she would still win the nomination. If she wins a few, it becomes imossible.
That is why Sanders' current plan involves flipping Super Delegates, which is another very long shot.
I think that at the end of this, Clinton will win the nomination because Democrats prefer Clinton over Sanders.
If she doesn't, I'm good with that. Sanders will be better than the Republican nominee.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Now his campaign wants them too switch from Hillary to Sanders even if she's ahead in pledged delegates????
That's just nuts!!!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)And after complaining so loudly about the whole super-delegate system in the first place. If Sanders is mad about super-delegates, tell him to turn to his campaign strategist Tad Devine and have him explain it; Devine was one of the people who set the whole system up.
riversedge
(70,181 posts)times--as a tourist and hiking. Very touristy. Oh, well, they need a rest. Spirituality area also.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I would oppose this strongly. I would oppose it even if polling was showing a huge likelihood of Hillary getting creamed in the GE. If Hillary is the pledged delegate leader going into the convention, then the people have spoken. Reversing that result would be anti-democratic.
The only exception I can see to that would be if the FBI indicts Hillary before the convention and she refuses to withdraw. That's the scenario that superdelegates and their freedom to switch was created for. But that scenario's damned unlikely, IMO. Not just the indictment, but her refusal to drop out, if there were an indictment. I don't think highly of Hillary, I don't believe for a moment she'd screw over her party.
No superdelegate shenanigans, please.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Barring some unforeseen eventuality, the super delegates would never switch from Hillary to Sanders if she's ahead in pledged delegates. Besides, they are not supporting him now, why would they leave Hillary for him anyway? I don't get why his campaign thinks that this would even be a realistic strategy.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)It's pretty clear that that strategy is likely to cost them a number of their supporters, since their supporters were so outraged that superdelegates could hold the balance of power if Bernie squeaked to small lead in elected delegates. But, add to that Sanders statement that he was only a Democrat for opportunistic reasons, and it seems even more unlikely that he will be able to sway many superdelegates. If that is really their strategy, it's dumb and alienating.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)they're not going to go against voters. If Sanders had been able to secure big wins and overcome Hillary in the pledged delegate count, then you would have seen SDs moving over to him (as they did with Obama in 2008). As things stand now, Hillary is ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. There's no way SDs will go against voters and side with Sanders.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nor should they.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)After bellyaching for months about the super delegate system, his campaign expects them to drop Hillary for Sanders, even if she's ahead in pledged delegates???
How democratic of them.........
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It's takes a little appreciation of nuance to see that though.
riversedge
(70,181 posts)a better campaign manager (Weaver--I think).
....With a decisive win in a key November battleground, the Clinton campaign got off to a good start. Of the states that voted Tuesday, Florida was the biggest delegate prize and the state where the Clinton campaign has been building a grassroots volunteer base the longest. Florida native and longtime Clinton aide Craig Smith -- the very first hire of Bill Clintons 1992 campaign -- has been working for the campaign organizing volunteers here since last fall.
Sanders, in contrast, didnt visit the state until last week, but then he did more than just dip his toe in. He went up on television in Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville and held big rallies in Miami, Gainesville and Orlando. But he was a late arrival in a state with extensive early voting; by the time he got on the air, about 750,000 Democrats had already cast their ballots, Florida Democrats said.
Sen. Sanders wanted to play big here, and I think that the fact that his numbers are not moving is more of a testament to his lack of ability to put together a diverse coalition in a big state like Florida, said Ashley Walker, Obamas 2012 Florida state director.
Florida Democrats credited the big win to the states diverse population, as well as the deep connection the Clintons have with the state. Bill Clinton campaigned relentlessly in Florida for President Obama in 2012.
Theyve been down here tirelessly every election cycle, said Walker. Theyre familiar faces down here for the average voter. And part of Sanders appeal in other states -- his laser focus on economic inequality -- hurt him in an ethnically and geographically diverse state. Our state is really eight or nine different states, said Walker. Clintons work on such a broad range of issues put her in a good position to garner support with all the different groups.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-220844#ixzz436IicEgM
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
morningfog
(18,115 posts)is not a winning strategy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If that's true, then shouldn't he know better? (Or does he know something that I'm not aware of?)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And the hypocrisy of the Sanders campaign is amazing. Last week supers were bad, and it would be horrible if Hillary used them to subvert the will of the people (as if she was ever going to lose). This week the plan is to get them to flip to the guy losing by 20%.
The galling audacity of his campaign is nothing short of astounding to me.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pathetic display this election cycle--even worse than Chris Christie acting as Trump's valet.
I mean, come on, it's funny it's so absurd on so many levels.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and then all the stupid PUMA crap which IMO was mostly disruptors.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)pointing towards defeating the Republicans.
Supposedly Sanders is attracting all these young people.
If he were really interested in lasting, positive change he'd be getting ready to steer them into the Democratic Party and local politics.
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)It hardens my resolve not vote for her.
Her campaign is not the one who suggested that super delegates should switch to the candidate who has less pledged delegates. What his campaign manager suggested is outrageous and undemocratic.
artislife
(9,497 posts)It is about the gleefulness mixed with smugness.
It is now just anchored into my experience when I think of little h.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. If Sanders was ahead in pledged delegates and Hillary's campaign manager suggested that the super delegates should support her, wouldn't you be angry? That's just undemocratic. What were Devine and Weaver thinking?
artislife
(9,497 posts)I have been here.
To me, she is little h.
No capitalization warranted.
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I expect Bernie and his team to get there eventually - even if it means they have to game out all the possible strategies.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)He switches from Independent to Democrat to take advantage of our infrastructure built and maintained by special interest sponsors. Now he believes that he can convince super delegates that come from that same Democratic infrastructure to betray the Democrat with the most pledge delegates and hand their vote over to him ? A carpetbagger ? I want some of what he's smoking.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)should switch to the candidate with less pledged delegates. What we don't know is if Sanders was on board with this idea. Sometimes campaign staffers say things that the candidate is not in agreement with and he/she has to rein them in. I think that the campaign will have to disavow this statement.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)He and everyone else in Bernie's camp have to know their political careers are as dead as Sanders', and they want to squeeze out as many benjamins as they can before the finality hits.
And I say this as a Bernie supporter.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)...
Clinton knows this all too well; its exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.
For the most part, these superdelegates had not previously been linked with a candidate when they pledged their support to Obama, but there were also several dozen superdelegates who switched from Clinton to Obama, including some high-profile ones such as Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and former Vice President Walter Mondale.
....
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
I've lost track as to whether Nate Silver is on or off the shitlist, but there it is.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The super delegates went with the person who had more pledged delegates. What Sanders' campaign stated is that they would try to convince super delegates to switch to their side, although Hillary is ahead in the pledged delegate count. That would be akin to stealing an election from the rightful winner.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Just go positive and play out the string until money runs out, then bow out gracefully. April 1st would be a good date for that.