HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Closed vs. Open Primaries...

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:46 PM

 

Closed vs. Open Primaries: Final Attempt to Delegitimize Hillary’s Victory Is Discredited

http://bluenationreview.com/final-attempt-to-delegitimize-hillarys-victory-is-discredited/

Team Sanders has offered every excuse in the book for why Bernie is losing: A primary schedule that front loaded the deep south, voter fraud, superdelegates, super PACs, the DNC, the “establishment,” a rigged system, he wasn’t really trying in some states, because Black voters don’t know what’s best for them, because poor people don’t vote. All of these excuses have been debunked. The latest excuse is closed primaries (pushed in recent days by Jane Sanders)—but this, too, has now been discredited.


The latest talking point Bernie Sanders, his staff, and his surrogates have been peddling to try to explain why he’s lost, to try to claim the system is rigged, and to try to delegitimize Hillary Clinton’s victory, is that closed primaries are undemocratic—and that if Independent voters had been allowed to participate, he would have won.

Vox crunched the numbers and it turns out that, while Bernie’s fortunes would have been slightly better had Independents been able to participate in the small number of closed primaries so far, he “would have won 41 more delegates than he currently has. Clinton is currently leading Sanders by 293 delegates (without even counting the superdelegates).”

Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight compares the Republican Primary rules with the Democratic Primary rules, and finds that Hillary’s pledged delegate lead would triple under the GOP rules: “The Democrats’ delegate allocation rules are more ‘fair’ than the GOP’s rules in the sense that vote shares are translated into delegate shares more faithfully and uniformly… If the Democrats used Republican allocation, Clinton would have wrapped up the nomination long, long ago.”

Another talking point bites the dust.

Bernie’s campaign has run out of excuses. The Democratic primary system is not “rigged” in Hillary’s favor. There are no grand conspiracies.

The plain truth is that what happened is the most basic story in politics: Someone wins and someone loses.

Bernie often opens his speeches by recounting how his candidacy was a long shot. How he was the underdog, with very little national name recognition and lacking the powerhouse fundraising capacity of his opponent. He boasts about how they have surpassed all expectations.

All of these things are true. He has had extraordinary success, and congratulations to him for it.

But his ubiquitous tale of his longshot candidacy must now complete its arc with some honesty about how long odds often don’t pay out. It was an uphill battle, and he didn’t quite make it to the zenith.

There’s no shame in that. There is, however, shame in continuing to insist that he is losing for any other reason than because his campaign simply didn’t resonate with as many primary voters.

At this point, Bernie needs to stop making excuses and say these words: Hillary Clinton is beating us fair and square. It’s the right thing to do.


40 replies, 1852 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Closed vs. Open Primaries: Final Attempt to Delegitimize Hillary’s Victory Is Discredited (Original post)
factfinder_77 Apr 2016 OP
LexVegas Apr 2016 #1
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #15
Baobab Apr 2016 #34
Zynx Apr 2016 #39
tonyt53 Apr 2016 #2
Baobab Apr 2016 #40
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #3
tonyt53 Apr 2016 #4
factfinder_77 Apr 2016 #5
sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #6
brooklynite Apr 2016 #7
Hortensis Apr 2016 #8
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #16
Hortensis Apr 2016 #30
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #31
Hortensis Apr 2016 #36
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #37
Hortensis Apr 2016 #38
QC Apr 2016 #9
arcane1 Apr 2016 #28
QC Apr 2016 #33
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #10
Unicorn Apr 2016 #14
msongs Apr 2016 #11
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #32
JaneyVee Apr 2016 #12
Unicorn Apr 2016 #13
sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #17
DrDan Apr 2016 #18
Post removed Apr 2016 #19
DrDan Apr 2016 #22
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #29
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #20
sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #23
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #25
Stuckinthebush Apr 2016 #21
Unicorn Apr 2016 #24
leftofcool Apr 2016 #26
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #27
bunnies Apr 2016 #35

Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:47 PM

1. The funniest part is that its not close. She is beating the shit out of him nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

15. True. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 09:30 PM

34. Not if you look at pairings in the general, Also, in 2008 she said the following:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:09 AM

39. Bernie has not yet been the target of a concerted effort to lampoon him.

He's an easy target, too. Within a month, his unfavorables would be driven up 10-15 points, and his GE advantage would be gone or even made into a deficit.

He is to our side what Kasich is to theirs. Kasich isn't actually as strong as he appears. He's taken the role of the "what might have been" contender and that's sort of where Sanders is now. It's ficitionalized and hasn't been subjected to scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:48 PM

2. But he needs to have a heart to heart with his supporters too.

 

If he doesn't, he will have a table in the back of the room at the convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:26 AM

40. You don't get it

..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:48 PM

3. Jane's gone rogue! Someone needs to let her know ...

... and keep her updated on the open/closed/mixed status of the upcoming primaries.

I mean, she's just ALL over the place with her mixed-up information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:51 PM

4. Yep. Bernie-ites are coming for you soon

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:55 PM

5. The #BernieOrBust Movement Throws Marginalized People Under The Bus

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:00 PM

6. Brock propaganda again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:00 PM

7. UNREC

The Sanders people will find PLENTY of additional ways to try and discredit Clinton.


They won't work any better....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:10 PM

8. Excellent post, thanks. Bernie would have

gained approximately 41 more delegates if all primaries were open.

I can't blame (too much) a man running for president with everything he has for playing to his followers' paranoia, feelings of marginalization, and hostility toward the other candidate, but it IS definitely time for him to at least refute the anger his lies have generated and set himself to generating new excitement around achievable progressive goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

16. The point of the Bernie Sanders campaign

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

...is a vision of a future America with Single Payer, free tuition, drug treatment on demand, no fracking, public funding of elections, Glass-Steagall, etc.

If he were only interested in incrementalism, he wouldn't have run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:26 PM

30. We'd all love to leave a long hard haul

behind, also timidity, small-mindedness, and empire-building.

Bernie's call to rally in numbers right now and force change definitely had appeal to me too. THAT's why, even though he failed to draw the needed numbers, I am hoping he will still be able to affect the direction and pace change takes.

Somewhat. As this post makes clear, Democrats have spoken by voting for both candidates but by far more for Hillary -- we want change, but we need responsible, carefully thought out, achievable, stable change that accomplishes what it is supposed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:31 PM

31. When FDR signed Glass-Steagall

...was that responsible change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:50 AM

36. FDR was an extremely establishment

moderate liberal Democrat. The Bernies of his day were very angry with him for getting in their way, the same as they are with Hillary now but a lot more. So (no surprise), in those days G-S was a large and very much needed, but very unsatisfyingly revolutionary, move.

A better question is, in this enormously different environment, would FDR's advisors of today recommend just keeping banks out of the investment business as the major fix for our financial industry problems, or would they think the rest of the financial industry needed to be regulated? What would they think of Dodd-Frank and how would they develop it further in future?

As a side note, those guys were very smart. How long would it take for them to wrap their minds around all the ramifications of computerized global finance and be able to foresee what would happen to L, F1, F3, A, and R separately and in combination if D, O, and/or G were changed?

(Just so you know, I've always wanted the banks broken up again. I remember when B of A used to be able to operate in only 3 states. Are we stupid or what!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 08:55 AM

37. Bernie Sanders isn't against all financial regulations besides Glass-Steagall.

Sanders voted for Dodd-Frank.

Hillary Clinton calls some firms "shadow banks." She wants "shadow banks" to have more reporting requirements. If you're implying that a President Sanders would veto such a bill, then I disagree.

Some were angry with FDR for not going further. That happens to every president who passes reforms. It would happen to a President Sanders. It's not a difference between FDR and Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 09:46 AM

38. Of course he isn't. But, he's put extreme emphasis

on "breaking up the banks," when a far broader approach is needed. In a world where only so much can be accomplished at any one time, most left-leaning and moderate economists do not feel that is the way to get the financial world under adequate regulatory control. To put it mildly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:12 PM

9. Wow. Only been here 24 days and already has 7 hides. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:48 PM

28. That amnesty is awfully convenient, isn't it?

 

It must be embarrassing for DU's owners, to have a site so tilted toward Sanders while taking money from Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 09:02 PM

33. Bingo!

And remember all those posts in ATA over the past four years telling us that there is no such thing as alert stalking and the jury system is the greatest thing since peanut butter 'n jelly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:19 PM

10. The problem with the analysis is

...assuming just a 5 point difference everywhere.

NY, one of the biggest states, is the only state with a 6 month freeze on party-switching. Bernie Sanders probably would have gained more than 5 points in NY if it had open primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:26 PM

14. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

11. so bernie wants to run as a democrat then complains about democrats voting in their own primaries nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:35 PM

32. It makes sense that

...someone running in a Democratic primary who serves in Congress as an Independent would want both Democrats and Independents to be able to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

12. K&R!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:26 PM

13. I looked at your hides. Are you part of the Correct the record campaign?

 

I got the idea you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:28 PM

17. Bluenation=Brock!

Using HRC's super pac propaganda to
justify closed primaries now?

Just keep the propaganda coming, because
that is all you have left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:29 PM

18. hear hear - "stop making excuses and say these words: Hillary Clinton is beating us fair and square"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #18)


Response to Post removed (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:35 PM

22. lol - "a lie"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:52 PM

29. BrockBros...hired trolls... BNR is the same bullshit.

 

What a bunch of incompetent ass-clowns. The only people believing their bullshit are those already drinking Clinton Koolaid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

20. That might be Brock, but it's truthful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:36 PM

23. You trust Brock? WOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:37 PM

25. Who said anything about trust?

Which part of the article do you dispute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:32 PM

21. Fabulous post!

Great read and spot on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuckinthebush (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:36 PM

24. Yeah, links straight back to the Clinton Campaign's site.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Unicorn (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:39 PM

26. Bernie is losing get over it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:47 PM

27. BlueNationReview...Brocks propaganda outlet.

 



Not even Pravda was as bogus a 'news' source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 09:39 PM

35. You deserve a raise.

 

I mean it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread