Hillary Clinton does not lead the Democratic Primary!

[Matariki]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-anderson/hillary-clinton-does-not-lead-the-democratic-primary-get-yourself-to-the-primary/1022946244431688

(posted in full with permission)

The entire basis of her lead is tied to polls. There are zero other indicators that would point to a Hil lead in this Primary. Zero! In every other arena Hil shows no lead. In any arena where the power of selective polling is removed from the hands of establishment pollsters there is zero evidence that Hil is the frontrunner. It does not exist! It is a staged play for the world to see. It is a production intended to make you believe. It is called Narrative Creation and enough is enough! It is a lie they hope you will accept.

In the polls that EVERY single person who supports Hil cites as proof of her lead is the reality. I will not drag on about the polls. Check the demographics and the methodology in every individual poll. The ONLY demographic Hil leads in is those who meet the following 3 criteria. 1. Over age 50. 2. Voted in both the 2014 and 2012 Primaries. 3. Voted Democrat when they did. Outside of this specialized demographic the support is hugely in favor of Bernie Sanders. But these polls are created by establishment pollsters and they are purposefully targeting the core of her limited support. Then claim she has a lead. It is beyond stupid, it is insulting. The die hard sworn to the party Democrat is an endangered species and a very small minority of Dem leaning voters. This is the equivalent of focusing on the ten fans in the restroom and ignoring the 65,000 fans in the stands.

Every poll outside establishment direction and control is a Bernie Sanders blowout. Where was the Hil support in the DFA membership vote? How about in the CWA union vote? Every online poll and every poll published for membership voting has been tremendously in favor of Bernie Sanders. EVERY union endorsement Hil has received has come from the Union Leadership and not through a membership vote. EVERY SINGLE ONE! That is establishment support, not membership support. Every debate poll, every focus group, everything outside the establishments cronyism and Narrative Creation leans exceedingly heavy toward Bernie Sanders.

What happened to ABC’s millennial focus group last night? ABC introduced their focus group before the debate. Nobody has heard from them since.

Pundits discuss who won, never about the merits of the ideas. They mention polish and appearance. But never venture into the strengths of the ideas presented or the content of the messages. Not, do banks need to be broken up? Is Single Payer Health Care better? Free public tuition merits? Does Wall Street have too much power? (etc.) Basing their announcements of victory on smoothness, one liners and how much smiling. Completely ignoring the content and focusing on the polish. We see the polish too. But we do not see it as a positive. We see it as slickness. As an ability to reflect, deflect, smile and move on. Ignoring the meat of the issues. We focus on the content. We focus on the merits of the candidate’s proposals. We are not tied to the establishment and content overwhelms image every time for us. Obviously we are going to see the winner differently when we see the debate as issues and not polish.

The contribution advantage is a landslide for Bernie. He broke Obama’s record 2008 total by a million donations already for a non-incumbent. He broke Obama’s 2012 2 million donor record for any candidate, already. Bernie took in 3 million in 3 days last week. Then gained another million in a single day when the HNC attempted to hamstring him with trumped up breach sanctions. Bernie has a massive following, follow the money. His opponent has more money, but in comparison no supporters. As far as the “breach”, I cannot wait for a full independent audit of all the campaigns.

The volunteers and the data they collect. I am a Precinct Captain. I phone bank and I canvass. As does a great group of people I volunteer with here in Clinton Iowa. From beating our feet and knocking doors we KNOW the real support that is out there. What have I found? Either people are pro-Bernie or they have no preference. We run into a few Hil supporters, but they are less than enthusiastic. They are not energized, they are not tuned in and they do not caucus. They simply accept Hil and as I said, they are few and far between. There is no core support for Hil in a state where she finished 3rd in the 2008 caucus. The idea that Hil leads Iowa is more Narrative Creation based on skewed polls and in defiance of actuality.

The Rallies! If there is such a huge lead for Hil why are her events nearly empty? Where is the support? You have seen the monster turnouts at Bernie’s events. Where is the turnout for the establishment anointed “frontrunner”? The truth is there is no great support and Hil is not the frontrunner. Here is an example from right here in Clinton, IA. 2 months ago Hil had a Town Hall here. A couple hundred people at most attended. 1 week ago Bernie had a Town Hall here. The attendance was roughly 1000. Standing room only! This is a scenario repeated in every venue across the country. There is little actual support for Hil and the events showcase that fact.

Social media is the accurate measure of the true nature of this Primary. It is overwhelmingly pro-Bernie Sanders. It is overwhelmingly anti-oligarchy. It is overwhelmingly enough is enough. Social Media is the pulse.

I did not write this so people would relax. Quite the contrary. I wrote this so you would all realize the need to finish it! To get out there and volunteer if you can. To be CERTAIN to vote and caucus where applicable. I wrote this so you can have the confidence to know we will win decidedly as long as you volunteer, vote and caucus. I wrote this so you finally realize that “when we stand together there is nothing we cannot do”. No truer words have ever been spoken. Know it to be true and know #BernieFrontRunner to be true! Now lets finish it!

Share this everywhere you can. Make it go viral. Put this in front of the eyes of our Bernie friends and Hil supporters alike. Not only feel the Bern, pass the Bern on!
share it from my note, share it from the page you found it, copy and paste the URL at the top of the page and post it in twitter, post it in every site you venture onto, etc...

[NorthCarolina]

1. Probably because in the real world

she's not ahead.

[Matariki]

2. It's going to be 2008 all over again

probably complete with dancing in the streets.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. It will be another first for the presidency.

In 2008, we elected our first black President. I 2008, we'll elect our first female President.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Oh,

are you insinuating that Bernie is transgender? Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just wasn't aware.

[Matariki]

13. If it comes to that

I'll be glad we finally have our first female President - who isn't Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. I suspect she won't be much different than Obama. Especially in her cabinet appointments, etc.

In the meantime I'm pulling for Sanders and hope he wins. I think he'll do a better job than Clinton and he aligns much more closely to my values.

[RoccoR5955]

44. No...

Bernie will be our first president from the 4th largest city (if it was a city) in the country. He's originally from Brooklyn, NY, the center of the universe. We really need a pragmatist from Brooklyn.

[loyalsister]

53. He would also be our first Jewish president

[rhett o rick]

86. Or it will be like 2000 where the hubris of the Democratic Party leaders thought the people

wanted another 8 years of DLC politics and lost to a Bush. We need to break free from the ownership of our government by Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires.

[Cal33]

55. I agree with you. Elizabeth Warren was (and for some of them she still is recognized as the head

of the Democratic Party). And now Bernie is also recognized as ahead of Hillary. The number of
Democrats who are expecting real change has increased by leaps and bounds. They are looking
to Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton.l

[redstateblues]

3. All the online polls show Bernie ahead by at least 70 points

That's all I need to know. Don't try to "blind me with science"

[NorthCarolina]

5. Perhaps

"blind me with BS" would be more descriptive of reality.

[NurseJackie]

11. Ha! For some folks, that's all that matters. :-) <3

[PosterChild]

24. Mathematics is sooooooo yesterday ! eom

[Blue_Adept]

29. All I need to know

[img][/img]

[Ed Suspicious]

50. Ok. Poll a random sampling of adults without the screens.

Has that been done?

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Matariki.

[Matariki]

6. Thx!

[Sancho]

8. In presidential primaries, endorsements have been among the best predictors..."

There are zero other indicators that would point to a Hil lead in this Primary. Zero! In every other arena Hil shows no lead. In any arena where the power of selective polling is removed from the hands of establishment pollsters there is zero evidence that Hil is the frontrunner.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

Before any votes are cast, presidential candidates compete for the support of influential members of their party, especially elected officials like U.S. representatives, senators and governors. During the period known as the “invisible primary,” these “party elites” seek to coalesce around the candidates they find most acceptable as their party’s nominee. Over the past few decades, when these elites have reached a consensus on the best candidate, rank-and-file voters have usually followed.

12/16/15 Linda Sánchez REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
12/15 Brad Ashford REP. (D-NEB.) 1
12/7 Michael E. Capuano REP. (D-MASS.) 1
11/30 Jerry McNerney REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Jackie Speier REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Maxine Waters REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Anna G. Eshoo REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Pete Aguilar REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/19 John A. Yarmuth REP. (D-KY.) 1
11/17 C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 Donna F. Edwards REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 John P. Sarbanes REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 Alan Grayson REP. (D-FLA.) 1
11/17 Jack Reed SEN. (D-R.I.) 5
11/16 Ruben Gallego REP. (D-ARIZ.) 1
11/14 Jay Inslee GOV. (D-WASH.) 10
11/14 Suzan DelBene REP. (D-WASH.) 1
11/14 Denny Heck REP. (D-WASH.) 1
11/13 Eleanor Holmes Norton DEL. (D-D.C.) 1
11/13 Ann Kirkpatrick REP. (D-ARIZ.) 1
11/13 Joe Donnelly SEN. (D-IND.) 5
11/11 Tony Cárdenas REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/11 Gwen Moore REP. (D-WIS.) 1
11/11 Corrine Brown REP. (D-FLA.) 1
11/10 Christopher A. Coons SEN. (D-DEL.) 5
11/9 Bennie G. Thompson REP. (D-MISS.) 1
11/8 Seth Moulton REP. (D-MASS.) 1
11/5 Maria Cantwell SEN. (D-WASH.) 5
11/4 Jay Nixon GOV. (D-MO.) 10
10/28 Heidi Heitkamp SEN. (D-N.D.) 5
10/28 Jared Huffman REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
10/27 Sherrod Brown SEN. (D-OHIO) 5
10/26 John Carney REP. (D-DEL.) 1
10/26 Thomas R. Carper SEN. (D-DEL.) 5
10/23 Paul D. Tonko REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/21 Jack Markell GOV. (D-DEL.) 10
10/20 Eliot Engel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/19 Joe Courtney REP. (D-CONN.) 1
10/16 William Keating REP. (D-MASS.) 1
10/14 Edward J. Markey SEN. (D-MASS.) 5
10/13 Yvette D. Clarke REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/13 Hakeem Jeffries REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/5 Robert C. Scott REP. (D-VA.) 1
10/5 John Hickenlooper GOV. (D-COLO.) 10
9/17 Maggie Hassan GOV. (D-N.H.) 10
9/13 Ann Kuster REP. (D-N.H.) 1
9/7 Cheri Bustos REP. (D-ILL.) 1
9/7 David Loebsack REP. (D-IOWA) 1
9/1 Zoe Lofgren REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/31 Tammy Baldwin SEN. (D-WIS.) 5
8/28 Timothy J. Walz REP. (D-MINN.) 1
8/24 Bonnie Watson Coleman REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 Donald Payne Jr. REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 John Garamendi REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/24 Bill Pascrell Jr. REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/18 Jim Himes REP. (D-CONN.) 1
8/6 Xavier Becerra REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/5 Scott Peters REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
7/15 Lois Capps REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
7/15 Marcia L. Fudge REP. (D-OHIO) 1
7/14 André Carson REP. (D-IND.) 1
7/13 Suzanne Bonamici REP. (D-ORE.) 1
6/27 Niki Tsongas REP. (D-MASS.) 1
6/26 Don Beyer REP. (D-VA.) 1
6/26 Brenda Lawrence REP. (D-MICH.) 1
6/23 William "Lacy" Clay Jr. REP. (D-MO.) 1
6/23 Matthew Cartwright REP. (D-PA.) 1
6/13 Tom Wolf GOV. (D-PA.) 10
6/13 John B. Larson REP. (D-CONN.) 1
6/13 Elizabeth Esty REP. (D-CONN.) 1
6/7 Dannel P. Malloy GOV. (D-CONN.) 10
6/5 Steve Cohen REP. (D-TENN.) 1
6/4 Christopher Murphy SEN. (D-CONN.) 5
5/27 Katherine Clark REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/20 Peter Shumlin GOV. (D-VT.) 10
5/14 Joseph P. Kennedy III REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/12 James McGovern REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/5 Gary Peters SEN. (D-MICH.) 5
5/5 Michael F. Bennet SEN. (D-COLO.) 5
5/4 Adam Smith REP. (D-WASH.) 1
5/4 Jim Cooper REP. (D-TENN.) 1
5/4 Rubén Hinojosa REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Gerald E. "Gerry" Connolly REP. (D-VA.) 1
5/4 Julia Brownley REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Henry Cuellar REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Marc Veasey REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Sean Patrick Maloney REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Derek Kilmer REP. (D-WASH.) 1
5/4 Ed Perlmutter REP. (D-COLO.) 1
5/4 Jared Polis REP. (D-COLO.) 1
5/4 Patrick Murphy REP. (D-FLA.) 1
5/4 Mike Thompson REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Kathy Castor REP. (D-FLA.) 1
5/4 José E. Serrano REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Joyce Beatty REP. (D-OHIO) 1
5/4 Filemon Vela REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Brad Sherman REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Adam Schiff REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Daniel Kildee REP. (D-MICH.) 1
5/4 Eddie Bernice Johnson REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Kathleen Rice REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Kurt Schrader REP. (D-ORE.) 1
4/29 Emanuel Cleaver REP. (D-MO.) 1
4/24 Robert P. Casey, Jr. SEN. (D-PA.) 5
4/23 Steve Israel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/23 Cory A. Booker SEN. (D-N.J.) 5
4/22 John Conyers Jr. REP. (D-MICH.) 1
4/16 Gina M. Raimondo GOV. (D-R.I.) 10
4/15 Jim McDermott REP. (D-WASH.) 1
4/14 Rosa L. DeLauro REP. (D-CONN.) 1
4/13 Tom Udall SEN. (D-N.M.) 5
4/12 Jeanne Shaheen SEN. (D-N.H.) 5
4/12 Rick Larsen REP. (D-WASH.) 1
4/12 Debbie Dingell REP. (D-MICH.) 1
4/12 Andrew M. Cuomo GOV. (D-N.Y.) 10
4/12 Diana DeGette REP. (D-COLO.) 1
4/12 Karen Bass REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
4/11 Nydia M. Velázquez REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/11 Jerrold Nadler REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
2/2 Brian Schatz SEN. (D-HAWAII) 5
1/29 Alcee L. Hastings REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/27 Tammy Duckworth REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/27 Judy Chu REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Ami Bera REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Ted Lieu REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Madeleine Bordallo DEL. (D-GUAM) 1
1/27 Mark Takano REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Mazie K. Hirono SEN. (D-HAWAII) 5
1/22 Loretta Sanchez REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/22 Lucille Roybal-Allard REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/22 Grace Napolitano REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
12/18/14 Bill Nelson SEN. (D-FLA.) 5
12/16 Al Franken SEN. (D-MINN.) 5
12/1 Benjamin L. Cardin SEN. (D-MD.) 5
12/1 Barbara A. Mikulski SEN. (D-MD.) 5
11/14 Terry McAuliffe GOV. (D-VA.) 10
11/10 Charles B. Rangel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/14 Nita Lowey REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
8/5 Mark R. Warner SEN. (D-VA.) 5
7/12 Michelle Lujan Grisham REP. (D-N.M.) 1
7/12 Martin Heinrich SEN. (D-N.M.) 5
6/21 Patrick J. Leahy SEN. (D-VT.) 5
6/18 Rick Nolan REP. (D-MINN.) 1
6/18 Betty McCollum REP. (D-MINN.) 1
6/7 Richard Blumenthal SEN. (D-CONN.) 5
6/6 Robin Kelly REP. (D-ILL.) 1
6/6 Bill Foster REP. (D-ILL.) 1
6/5 Richard J. Durbin SEN. (D-ILL.) 5
6/4 Amy Klobuchar SEN. (D-MINN.) 5
5/22 Debbie Stabenow SEN. (D-MICH.) 5
5/4 Mark Takai REP. (D-HAWAII) 1
5/3 Tim Kaine SEN. (D-VA.) 5
2/7 Ted Deutch REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/31 Joseph Crowley REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/29 Joe Manchin III SEN. (D-W.VA.) 5
1/28 Janice Hahn REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Jan Schakowsky REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Luis Gutierrez REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Terri A. Sewell REP. (D-ALA.) 1
1/28 David Cicilline REP. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Sheila Jackson Lee REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 Henry C. "Hank" Jr. Johnson REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 David Scott REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 Sheldon Whitehouse SEN. (D-R.I.) 5
1/28 Gregory W. Meeks REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Grace Meng REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Lois Frankel REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/28 Danny K. Davis REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Stephen F. Lynch REP. (D-MASS.) 1
1/28 John Lewis REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 Frederica Wilson REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/28 Brian Higgins REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Jim Langevin REP. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Mike Honda REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Sander Levin REP. (D-MICH.) 1
1/28 Louise Slaughter REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Chellie Pingree REP. (D-MAINE) 1
1/28 Joaquin Castro REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 Doris O. Matsui REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Richard E. Neal REP. (D-MASS.) 1
1/28 Steny H. Hoyer REP. (D-MD.) 1
1/28 Gene Green REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 John Delaney REP. (D-MD.) 1
1/28 Cedric Richmond REP. (D-LA.) 1
1/13 Chris Van Hollen REP. (D-MD.) 1
12/12/13 Dianne Feinstein SEN. (D-CALIF.) 5
11/17 Kirsten E. Gillibrand SEN. (D-N.Y.) 5
11/11 Carolyn Maloney REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
11/8 Patty Murray SEN. (D-WASH.) 5
11/7 Mark Dayton GOV. (D-MINN.) 10
11/5 Tim Ryan REP. (D-OHIO) 1
11/2 Charles E. Schumer SEN. (D-N.Y.) 5
10/30 Barbara Boxer SEN. (D-CALIF.) 5
8/18 Dina Titus REP. (D-NEV.) 1
6/18 Claire McCaskill SEN. (D-MO.) 5

[Matariki]

9. As far as I've heard

they only get one vote each. Just like the rest of us.

But perhaps I'm naive.

[Sancho]

12. Yep. That's naive.

Read the study of primaries and endorsements. The reference is at the site.

[retrowire]

14. If she wins based on endorsements alone, then consider democracy dead.

And if you're not outraged by that, consider yourself unamerican.

[restorefreedom]

64. this^^^^^^ but it won't happen

they might try, but a theft through superdelegates will never stand, not this year, people have seen too much.

[NurseJackie]

15. Perhaps. But who am I to say? You'll need to decide for yourself.

It's a mistake to underestimate the influence of notable politicians, especially with their constituents. The same holds true for unions. In addition to the union members' individual votes* but the groundwork "machinery" and volunteer manpower and money that the unions can provide for the candidate.

Their collective ability to influence and shape an election's outcome reaches much further than simply "one-person, one-vote".

Bernie's list of political endorsements is meager. Bernie's list of union endorsements is bleak. His polling numbers are dismal and lackluster (except for a state or two). But, he really can't expect to win the entire nomination by just winning a state or two.

The odds are stacked against him and there's really not any meaningful opportunities for him to budge his poll numbers OR to get any influential endorsements.



-----
(* Yeah yeah, I know, not 100% of union members support the officially endorsed candidate.)

[Matariki]

17. In so many ways these conversations are fruitless

we'll know when we know.

[PosterChild]

26. Thank! eom

[andrewv1]

32. Another numbers advantage Hillary has over Bernie are

Unfavorability ratings.

I don't know why it's so problematic for a Clinton supporter to grasp, but you can't win a general election with that type of baggage.

Advice to the bunch of you and even if it isn't Bernie; Find a new candidate.
Maybe there's gonna be a deadlocked convention & you can bring on Warren or Gore, but most potential voters just don't like her.

And to listen to her the other night talking about regime changes when you're trying to fight ISIS, I thought I was listening to Dick Cheney or Henry Kissinger.
Of course, we have to realize you need a replacement dictator in there so more weapons can be sold to both sides besides just the rebels for her military industrial complex donors...But we really don't need to start WW III.

[NurseJackie]

33. If that brings you comfort ...

... then you should hold on to it tightly for as long as you can.

[andrewv1]

58. I think you better hold on to your children tightly

if you have any.

Don't think there's much of a choice between her and the Republican clown car in their Neocon Hawkish tendencies.

She was very effective as Secretary of State in the continued destabilization of the Middle East almost as much as Bush & Cheney.

And I can't even imagine what she would have done if she were still there instead of Kerry at the beginning of the Syria crisis to handle that situation...

[NurseJackie]

59. Some people like to worry needlessly.

I'm not one of them.

[andrewv1]

63. Well OK,

I think you said it all...

Good Luck

[SmittynMo]

23. ALan Grayson Just said the other day

that he had not pledged his support for HRC on the Ed show. Although it really doesn't matter. The elite will take care of the elite. Which means that 99% of those listed will probably be looking for a new job soon. This starts with the presidency, and works down from there. I say, bring on more names. Add them to the losers in the next election.

[TrumanTown]

62. Nicole Sandler Interviews Alan Grayson

[Betty Karlson]

75. DNC is trying to get him out of the way, right?

Even though in Florida, winning the state is about energising your base, not about winning the tiny slice of swing voters?

[Matariki]

71. I wonder if the DNC put on a bit of pressure to get those endorsements

they do control some purse strings.

[litlbilly]

25. Bernie supporters are not, "rank and file" these are different times...

[brooklynite]

48. No, the have one DELEGATE vote each...

And you only need 2,000 or so.

[Matariki]

49. Oh yeah, superdelegate votes.

We'll see how things go if they use that option.

[ejbr]

16. May I ask

if this is proving to be an anti-establishment election, why would establishment endorsements affect the electorate? True, there are many people who are too busy and indifferent to follow politics as you or I who will take these endorsements more seriously, but there are those who hear what Bernie offers and will realize that these endorsements mean little to nothing. Especially since they are by establishment individuals. As a matter of fact, this list may even reinforce or inspire a vote for Bernie. Or, since it may be an anti-establishment election, in the words of financial investments, past results do not guarantee future performance.

[Sancho]

41. Do you think this is the first time we've had a "revolution"?

Some of us burned draft cards and marched for peace - and really saw thousands in the street along with getting involved with politics (18 year old vote, ERA, Title IX, etc.). We lived through efforts for integration. This is not an anti-establishment election any more than ones that occurred in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

The Bernie "revolution" is sort of lightweight as social-political movements go. If the Sanders campaign think that they will replace a few hundred legislators in this election - good luck.

The Politics538 tracks endorsements because it's one of the best predictors of primary nominations. You should read:
The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago Studies in American Politics)
by Marty Cohen (Author), David Karol (Author), Hans Noel (Author), John Zaller (Author)

The OP said there was no evidence except manipulated polls that anyone wanted Hillary. In fact, there are lots of other indicators. Endorsements are one, union support is another. There are plenty of indicators besides polls that Hillary is popular and will win the Democratic nomination.

[PosterChild]

70. Yep. All that AND the polls. eom

[ejbr]

79. There appears to be

some considerations that affect polling. Clinton's name recognition, her connection to Bill, the DNC's efforts to minimize the exposure of other candidates, the media's black-out of Bernie's message and supporters. I realize these things may appear to deflect the nature of our conversation, but in a sense they do manipulate the polling by keeping many people ignorant of their choices.

True, whether it is Clinton's suitability (of which I cannot argue) or the tables being so highly stacked against her competitors, we may never know. My point, in response to you initial post, is that establishment endorsements may not be what pulls her through, but the myriad of forces aligned with her.

[Sancho]

80. Honestly, when people hear Bernie they don't all universally like him..

Maybe a couple years ago the only people who knew Bernie were Thom Hartmann listeners. Lots of people have hear him in the last year. Name recognition is less a problem than the initial reaction.

At my union, on our local college campus, and with various political groups Bernie comes up now. A subset (my observation is about 15-20%) like him or his message.

About the same number immediately dislike Bernie - they say he is "grating" or "loud" or "simplistic" when seeing him the first time.

Bernie's message does not resonate in the Sunbelt with immigrants or unions - because he proposes policies that are not consistent with those groups' agenda; or at least Hillary's are closer.

One example. Some young people are bombarded with advice to "save" and "invest early for retirement", so they can't resolve that advice from parents and trusted people with "tear down Wall Street", "tax transactions", and "break up banks".
Older votes (retired) that I see often think Bernie can't win anything - and they also have savings in big banks and Wall Street. Everyone wants regulation and tax reform, but not getting rid of the system - which Bernie seems to say at all his rallies. Immigrant small business owners here approve of parts of the TPP!

When people have a "little" exposure to Bernie - as many are turned off as turned on. Then they get a poll opportunity and they go for the most admired women in the US for the last 20 years? Not a surprise.

[ejbr]

83. Not claiming

that he should or will be universally liked; my concern is that there is a concerted effort to prevent him from being universally known. As I'm sure you will agree, your anecdote about how he is received in certain regions should not preclude him being exposed to all regions. I recently heard Bernie was at 5% in Iowa in January, but has reached 39% with added exposure.

Also, it is unfortunate that one would pick someone based on superficial qualities with little regard to his policies. It begs the question of whether they voted for Bush because they could see having a beer with him. Last, many (many) progressive pundits are aware of Hillary's accomplishments and would be stoked to have a female president. But given the nature of their work, they have to turn away from voting for her, regardless of her prestige. My point is not giving all voters a fair chance to know the pros and cons of each candidate is a disservice to democracy and will definitely skew polls to the way the powers that be want.

[Sancho]

84. I have not seen or heard of a concerted effort to keep Bernie from visibility (except on DU).

That's from 25 years in Fl politics. Of course there are Democrats who have favorites - and the nature of politics is often competitive. I've certainly seen dirty tricks. It is clear that party politics is competitive.

Most of the "exclusion" I've seen has been with Charlie Crist because some didn't like him changing party. Grayson is outspoken and gets some critics. I've never been at state meeting or union meeting here where there was open conspiracy over Bernie. Of course there are the usual criticisms about "being a Democrat", etc.

My union's analysis of policies put Hillary first and Bernie 3rd. I've posted multiple times about those issues. We did a fair evaluation, and we send surveys to members, hold chapter meetings, and have representatives at statewide meetings.

I'm not in on DNC insider meetings. Florida is an expensive market, so without big bucks, no candidate will survive long here. If you don't have money, you need to be able to raise money to get exposure.

[ejbr]

85. I appreciate the civil discourse

[Dustlawyer]

21. I bet they share many of the same donors. Also, they will all get big donations in their next

Election!

[pangaia]

39. Boy are THEY going to be embarrassed.

[We_Must_Organize]

42. But look at the endorsement primary on the right

Jeb Bush leads there. This is not a good year to be the establishment favorite.

[RoccoR5955]

45. They can always change their mind

and vote.

[mhatrw]

52. And nobody is more popular right now than members of Congress! nt

[NCTraveler]

18. Yes, she does.

Even Sanders says it.

[shenmue]

19. A Facebook post.

[PosterChild]

28. But...

"Social media is the accurate measure of the true nature of this Primary"

And rallies ! Don't forget rallies !

[Matariki]

35. You really think an enthusiastic base is sarcastically funny?

Let's chat again after Iowa and New Hampshire

[PosterChild]

69. Nope, i think the idea that....

.... the echo chamber of "social media" and attendance at rallies have greater significance and predictive power than scientifically conducted random sample polling is bullshit. It's simply a vehicle for egregious confirmation bias.

Disdain for scientific polling deserves disdain in return.

As far as enthusiasm itself is concerned, in my opinion enthusiasm shuts down critical, detailed consideration of facts and leads, more often than not, to error, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. Here is from a recent artcle that touches on this point of view -

Now, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I think that Bernie Sanders is to a certain extent pushing certain buttons when he rails on the corporate evil-doers on Wall Street. He’s pushing a button for human beings that are suspicious that small groups of people are exercising untoward control over them.

The effect of making that argument is to trigger a distinctive response by human beings who are inclined to this opinion anyway. And once he’s activated that part of the brain, it’s difficult for supporters to think straight about the issue. That’s why Hillary has been having such a hard time defending her nuanced and complicated approach to the regulation of Wall Street. She’s even gotten some boos. When we’re operating on instinct we don’t want to hear about things being complicated. For instance, at the last debate, she was asked about the restoration of Glass-Steagall act. Liberals generally say, “Hey, we ought to go back to Glass-Steagall.” Hillary Clinton’s point has been, maybe we need to do that—but we need to do a lot of things. Just restoring Glass-Steagall isn’t going to solve the problem. And when she has made that argument in these Democratic presidential debates, you can hear the groans of Bernie Sanders supporters—because they don’t want to hear that. They want to hear simpler answers.

This is part of Hillary Clinton’s problem. She thinks we want complicated answers, but voters always want simple answers. Simple always beats complicated, and that’s true of Democrats as well as Republicans.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-evolutionary-psychology-213444#ixzz3v1LBpxzH

[zentrum]

20. The DNC and DWS

….are scaring me to death because of how they are running this election. Actually preventing the country from hearing the democratic message. And promoting a candidate who, while she has name recognition, is not trusted.

If HRC is so electable, why can't she win the primary fair and square without all the thumbs on the scale? Don't we want and need the candidate who is actually the one Democrats and the base feel passionate about?

[Yallow]

27. Exactly

The next debate will be up against Football Playoffs.

Gimmee a break.

We are being screwed folks.

[zentrum]

31. Don't take it lying down!

Please call the DNC and raise hell.

DNC: 202 863 8000

[DhhD]

30. Hillary Clinton is taking herself down in the Democratic campaign when she repeated the

WSJ-Wall Street Journal's big lie about ACA 18 trillion dollar healthcare. She actually picked up and used a GOP talking point. One immediate response: Trump called her a liar.

IMO, this centerist triangulation will cause conservatives to remain Right of Clinton.

[zentrum]

40. It's appalling.

Call the DNC:

202 863 8000

More debates and scheduled when they will be watched. Resignation of DWS. Full neutral investigation of the "hack" scandal.

[loyalsister]

57. They are using a "people vote for winners" strategy

They are trying to declare HRC the winner based on polls and endorsements before a single vote from a citizen is cast.
The superdelegates are kind of a joke right now considering how many are among a group of people who are really not well liked right now.

It truly is offensive and I bet more people see through it than they expect.

[Matariki]

61. Clinton got her ass handed to her on facebook Friday

because of the actions of her friend Debbie Wasserman.

I find it difficult to believe that *none* of her 'supporters' have facebook accounts

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. There is an unknown quantity in this election

[ChiciB1]

34. I've NEVER In My Life Seen Almost EVERY SINGLE Media Outlet

ignore a person as much as they do Bernie! It smells to high heaven and any thinking person should be wondering why! Even the smallest Repuke candidates have gotten more coverage than Bernie has. I honestly believe that a plan was put in place by TPTB when they began to see Bernie's grassroots populism growing day by day! Somewhere in the higher echelons of either the DNC or many other head honchos together who made some sort of concerted plan to put Bernie on IGNORE!

HOWEVER, I see there are many here who just don't get it! Maybe six months down the road there will be much more information that will have the Clinton camp playing the game of CYA!

Until that time, WE MUST MARCH ON, big boots or flip flops like me down here in Florida!

While it irritates me to no end that he's being so ignored, I truly feel the time will come when he CAN'T BE IGNORED!

[Matariki]

36. +1

Yep, keep up the good work. Volunteering, donating, hacking those interweb polls

[Matariki]

38. Wonder what they'll do if it comes down to Trump vs. Sanders?

[zentrum]

43. My right wing

…brother-in-law said he'd vote for Bernie over Trump. But will stay home if Hillary is the only alternative.

Wake up DNC/DWS!!!

[Matariki]

46. Maybe that's her plan to win

if her buddy Trump gets the republican nomination. Winning by everyone staying home

[aidbo]

47. Start trying to make Trump look reasonable?

[OilemFirchen]

37. "WINNING in all the straw polls, debates, internet videos, popularity all the time."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027465825

[bbgrunt]

51. there has been a certain air of mass-hypnosis about

this whole primary process regarding the Clinton campaign. It feels very manufactured.....and our gov't along with the corporate media has been perfecting the manufacturing of consent on us for decades now.

Iowa is right around the corner and we will see how this plays out, see if the fog of the media and chanting of the machine can be overcome.

At least in Iowa, we don't have to deal with voting machines--just the aggregated numbers that are called in regarding the results of each caucus location.

Now, as I count to 3 you will awake and feel fully conscious and wonderful..one..your senses will be fully functioning and aware...Two...you will be able to weigh the costs and benefits of your choices rationally and understand the consequences of those choices and follow your best intentions for the future of your country and humanity...THREE!

[CorporatistNation]

67. Remember Obama in 2008... Clinto Will Be Shipping in Little Ole Ladies

to Shill for her in the caucus just like Obama did. The Sanders Campaign better have people checking IDENTIFICATION to avoid the effect of ringers being shipped in to tilt the caucus in Hillary's favor...

[CoffeeCat]

76. You can't caucus in Iowa...

...unless you live in Iowa and registered to vote in our state. You do have to show ID before you can caucus.

There are 1700 precincts in Iowa. It is highly doubtful that anyone could bring in that many people to make a difference. A candidate would gave to send in many people to one caucus site to make a real difference.

Furthermore, at least half (probably more) of Iowa's precincts are in rural or less populated areas. Some precincts only have 10, 20, 40 people caucusing. These are neighbors and friends caucusing. Unknown outsiders would stand out. It wouldn't work.

In heavily populated areas it might work. However you'd have to send in multiple plants for it to move the needle. It's not "one person, one vote." Precincts are allotted a certain number of delegates. During the caucuses, people divide into candidate camps. The delegates are apportioned according to the number of supporters in each camp.

Let's say that 200 show up to caucus in my precinct and we are apportioned 10 delegates. Let's say 100 caucus for Sanders; 100 caucus for Clinton. Each gets 5 delegates. See how tough it is to move that needle? To win one more delegate, you'd have to send in an extra dozen plants. It's just not feasible to cheat like that in so many precincts, undetected.

There is an area of concern--and that is the new "tele-caucus". Expats and military serving overseas will be able to vote via keypad. Not sure how this is being administered, but it is new and is electronic-based. It's important to understand how that will work. Multiple witnesses should be on hand when those votes are tabulated and called in.

When Iowa caucus final precinct numbers are called in to precinct central, the call is made with several witnesses in the room. It's a very sound system. Let's hope that this new tabulated portion will also involve witnesses and fail safes against rigging/cheating.

[EndElectoral]

54. "Pundits discuss who won, never about the merits of the ideas."

"They mention polish and appearance. But never venture into the strengths of the ideas presented or the content of the messages. "

Bingo. This to me has been the bane of the debates thus far, and in some ways the debate here at DU. There are many posts on discussions about "looking presidential", "polls", and lately "bathrobes and toilet issues."

The fact that climate change is barely mentioned in the debate, the efficacy of regime change as a foreign policy, the impact of an expanded fight against ISIL or Asad on the budget, discussion about trade, immigration.

Basically, it's become how do they look. Who's tougher? Who can come up with the best funny platitude?

The lack of good post-debate analysis especially by so-called expert pundits is mind boggling.

[Matariki]

56. It's why America can't have nice things

this very reason.

[Persondem]

60. Wow ... I need to buy tin foil stock. What a crock of rationalization.

[brooklynite]

66. Okay - how is Sanders really doing?

Nationwide, Iowa and in New Hampshire?

[Matariki]

68. I guess we'll know when we know

After those caucuses and primaries.

It does seem rather disingenuous that Clinton's supporters deny so strongly the significance of large rallies, historic donations, and a huge enthusiasm gap between candidates. I would seriously expect that the Clinton campaign doesn't dismiss that stuff so readily, behind closed doors at any rate.

[brooklynite]

72. IOW: "I want to believe Sanders is ahead because it makes me feel good"

[Matariki]

73. You failed to address anything I wrote, in favor of snark.

How do you explain, to yourself, privately even, Sanders' larger crowds? Larger number of individual donors? Enormous enthusiasm gap on every social media platform? You seriously don't think that stuff translates into votes? Talk about "wanting to believe".

Anyway, arguing about IS fruitless. We will know when we know.

[brooklynite]

74. Sanders has energetic fans...which don't automatically turn into voters.

...and while the Sanders people keep insisting that Clinton wants a "coronation", she's hitting the ground every day, meeting with voters.



...and investing in a GOTV ground game. Having lost Iowa in 2008, (and having personally talked to her campaign manager) I'm comfortable that she knows what she has to do this time.

[Gothmog]

77. Romney and Rove also wanted to ignore the polls and Nate Silver in 2012

That did not work out for them

[hobbit709]

78. Hard to lead in a primary if there isn't a primary yet.

she's leading in some polls but polls are meaningless in the real world.

[Betty Karlson]

81. K&R for exposure. eom

[coyote]

82. Great post thanks!

I always questioned the establishment polls. Even the voting demographics at DU (a site for Democrats) shows 80% for Bernie, and a vocal Clinton minority at 20%...just like all the other online polls.