Clinton is beating Sanders. Don't blame the party, blame the people

[BainsBane]

The American left appears to believe democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders would be winning the race for the Democratic party’s nomination if not for the sinister machinations of the elite. The party is more liberal than former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the thinking goes, and she represents an era in US politics no longer recognizable today. . . .

All this might be convincing if not for the fact that Clinton is winning the popular vote.

I’m aware this is blindingly obvious, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to leftist voices on social media. But it’s true. Clinton is winning more votes than Sanders. The difference is not attributable to her institutional advantage among “superdelegates”, who are elite party members free to support any candidate they wish – it’s down to her popular appeal.

Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve.

Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/hillary-clinton-beating-bernie-sanders-explained-voters-delegates-democratic-party

[bravenak]

1. This part:

Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve.

Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.

Is the reason why.

[BainsBane]

2. And just more voters period. 2.6 million more

Not a small amount.

[bravenak]

3. It really is overwhelming

I know I keep saying it but, she berned him up off tha block!

[BainsBane]

6. Also the areas most effected by long lines in Arizona

were Latino precincts that favored Clinton. The whole conspiracy about Clinton manipulating the election depends on willful ignorance of how primaries are conducted by the GOP state leadership in Arizona.

[bravenak]

8. I think that many would say it no matter what, so long as he lost it.

The refusal to place the blame where it belongs tells me exactly what I need to know about the game they are playing.

[BainsBane]

9. Indeed. nt

[BainsBane]

7. If you want change, the GOP will provide plenty of it

Bernie not so much. His promised revolution hasn't materialized, and he has no other plan for enacting his legislation. Voters rightly understand that talk alone accomplishes nothing.

[StevieM]

14. Welcome to DU!! I don't think it is more of the same if we

nominate three more justices like Sotomayer and Kagan. It means we are flipping the ideological balance of the court, and securing it for 20 years.

Both candidates will have limits as to what they can get done given that there is a Republican Congress.

[72DejaVu]

5. The next step:

Replace the people with the Vanguard Party.

It's how revolutions work.

[rhett o rick]

10. Propaganda does work and the Big Money can supply lots of propaganda. They own the

networks. Most of Sanders supporters are not network TV watchers.

[BainsBane]

17. Not effectively enough, clearly

Since Bernie's huge ad buys, greatly outspending Clinton in many states, have not produced winning results.

[seabeyond]

12. Meh... I am cheering the people and their right t voice, thru their vote. !!!

[Hoyt]

13. Seems so simple, but people either believe world is against Sanders, or they enjoy whining together.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Well the policies of Clinton are pretty certain to be friendlier to the affluent and upwardly mobile

Hey, that's fine. I'm "privileged" enough to acknowledge that the status quo which I personally am impatient to make some fixes to, will nevertheless likely mean a lower tax bill for yours truly, than a single payer health care plan or fully funded public higher education would.

If "the people" are pretty happy with the way things are, ok then. They'll get 4 years of more of the same, which is undoubtedly better than the GOP alternative.

[BainsBane]

16. Which policies?

The ones where the upper middle class benefit from tuition free public college for their children?
That one isn't Clinton's.

Which policies are you referring to? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

If you'd read the independent analysis of their tax plans, you would see that it was Bernie that proposes policies that increase the tax burden on all incomes, including those near the bottom.

On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Now some might argue they payoff is worth it, but he hasn't offered an full explanation of the costs and benefits of his plans. Clinton doesn't propose lower taxes for upper incomes. Quite the contrary.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals

[Warren DeMontague]

18. In general, a stronger safety net means higher taxes. That is what Sanders is proposing.

Your words; "increase the tax burden on all incomes". I don't think my taxes would go down under HRC, but they probably would go up more under Sanders.

Part of that, of course, is wrapped up in a SPHC plan, and it is undeniable that the ACA, while improving the situation, left many- particularly lower income people- with high deductibles and premiums, along with marginal coverage.

Like I said, certainly an improvement. But a SPHC system would mean better universal coverage along with those increased tax burdens, the lion's share of which would be paid by the higher brackets.

For people on the lower end, a SPHC system would almost certainly be a net gain on taxes versus better coverage and no premiums.

[BainsBane]

19. I don't know what your income is

but her website and the tax foundation's analysis together demonstrate that higher incomes would face a tax increase under Clinton. The Tax Foundation also analyzes the consequences and tax burden of Sanders plans. The advantage of independent organizations is that they are less bound by the biases many of us naturally feel toward certain individuals.

Even if Sanders were elected president, congress wouldn't pass single payer. You may think the poor would be better off with 10-11 percent lower take home pay, but ultimately the decision whether to support such a plan is theirs. Ultimately, the majority of voters haven't gone for it. I think the fact that Sanders himself doesn't take the plan seriously, which is reflected in the shoddy way in which it was put together and problems with the numbers, doesn't help voters to take it seriously. I certainly don't find it or much of what he says credible, and 2.6 million more Americans have voted as I have.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Ah, so we're only talking about proposals which would pass congress, specifically the GOP house.

And which of Hillary Clinton's proposals qualify in that regard, specifically?

[BainsBane]

21. Any of them are far more feasible

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Reducing out of pocket costs and enabling the fed govt to negotiate discounted medication prices is a far easier lift than single payer. It's the difference between Republicans having to justify wanting their voters to pay higher fees vs. what they can and will spin as communism.

And the fact she has a far better track record of getting legislation passed by working with congress, both Democrats and Republicans. If what is actually accomplished means nothing, then what is even the point? if the goal is to ensure govt doesn't function and to simply install an entertainer in chief, that seems pretty pointless. I know some care far more about having their anger validated, but I am not interested in feeding into that rage or sense of entitlement.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Yes, I know all about the armies of straw you continually face down, and bravely so.

...

leaving all that aside, it is highly unlikely that either will be able to get a whole lot through the congress, barring some miraculous turnover of the House, unlikely due to districting realities, etc. Being smart, you know this.

And at the end of the day, my point here about Hillary is, it's fine. I've acknowledged all along that HRC is likely to be the nominee, she's not my first choice but she's a damn sight better than any of the GOP alternatives, obviously. I'm good with that.

But I think I know what I'm getting, and what to expect, more or less. And it's not gonna include a whole lot of wholesale social or policy change. Maybe a slightly more hawkish take on foreign policy, or a more openly pro-Likud Israel approach.



It is the people who are expecting some miraculous departure from the status quo once she takes the oath of office, who are likely to be deeply disappointed I think.

[sadoldgirl]

22. Okay then, if HRC becomes the nominee

you hold the people, who voted for her responsible.

When she loses in the election you also hold the same
people responsible. Deal?

[Beacool]

25. Why would she lose?

Either of our candidates would win over Trump.

[sadoldgirl]

28. There would and could be many reasons for that,

but I don't think we can count on Trump.

Unfortunately I think it will be Cruz, and he is
a far greater danger than the Dumpster, because
he is at this point still hiding his very bright and
devious mind.

[Beacool]

24. Hear, hear!!!

Finally an article expressing some common sense. Hillary is winning for the simple reason that more people are voting for her than are voting for her opponent.

Ain't democracy grand?

[Number23]

30. This bit of the piece is simply devastating

Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.

Nothing but the truth. That is going to leave one hell of a mark.

[ladjf]

26. Your suggestion is based on unsubstantiated evidence and in that sense fallacious. nt

[LuvLoogie]

27. She has 2.5 million more popular votes. 300 more delegates. Do you dispute that?

If you believe that Hillary's support is a bitcoin Ponzi Scheme, you are setting yourself up for complete and utter disillusionment. Your anger stems from illogic meeting reality. Something does not compute and you are crashing.

[Number23]

29. "But his real problem is that he isn’t getting enough votes"

Put a period on that and call it a day. 'Nuff said. Truly.

[TCJ70]

31. OK...people are making a really bad choice. n/t

[corbettkroehler]

32. The Party DELIBERATELY AND ADMITTEDLY Is Tilted Toward Clinton

This is not opinion. It is fact. In light of this fact, I blame the party.

[BainsBane]

33. That is because

You do not respect the rights of your fellow citizens to make their own political choices. There is no conceivable way the DNC could control the votes of millions.

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the campaign strategy and tactics of supporters and reflect on how that may have contributed to the electoral results? Then of course there is the candidate himself.

[DemocraticWing]

34. You used to have good, thought-out opinions. Now you just want to bash Bernie and his supporters.

I'm sorry we pissed you off so much.