Bernie Sanders says he is losing bc "poor people didn't vote", hurting "revolution"

[downtown]

It would seem strange that Bernie Sanders, a candidate who has staked his entire campaign on fighting income inequality and providing direct assistance to the poor, has lost almost every state where income inequality is greatest. With the election virtually out of reach at this point, he points out one reason why he's probably going to lose. Poor people aren't voting.

Here's the quote:

Sen. Bernie Sanders has built his campaign on a message of combating income inequality, but that message doesn't seem to be resonating in many of the states with the country's highest levels of income inequality.

Of the 25 states with the highest levels, 17 have held primaries so far — and Hillary Clinton has won 16 of those contests.

When asked why he thinks he's losing in those states, Sanders responded, "Well, because poor people don't vote. I mean, that's just a fact."

In an interview airing on NBC's "Meet the Press" this Sunday, Sanders described voter turnout among low-income Americans as "a sad reality of American society, and that's what we have to transform."

I mean, Sanders isn't really wrong with the principle of this statement, but it's a huge reason why I am very personally skeptical of the idea of Sanders as a transformational politician, or that he represents some sort of "political revolution". If you aren't able to expand your coalition beyond, generally, educated white liberals and young people, what's to revolutionize?

Is Sanders accurate in his critique here, and is that fair? If he is, how does anybody go about changing this? Am I being too harsh on the guy?

 

[Kyriakos]

No, you'll do fine with Hilary, ie the Trump she'll lose to. Sanders wasn't anything Great, but compared to the rest you have as candidates he would be the saner option.

If you are asking why he didn't win the votes there, chances are most of Usaia is way too afraid of 'the socialism'+ Hila inheriting the black vote due to not good reasons. Less chances of this being due to reason worth examining.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'll quote something I posted in the Dem nomination thread. Generally he actually is winning poor whites who are still in the Democratic Party, so it's not correct to say that "educated white liberals and young people" are his only supporters. Bernie supporters are actually a coalition of a couple of different types of white people.

Income inequality is highest in states that are highly urban and/or have large minority populations, so there's no mystery as to why he's losing the places with high income inequality. His real problem is that he never made any inroads into any minority communities. Although I support him, just winning a broad section of the white vote is not enough to win, nor should it be.

Sanders does pretty well with the demographics that largely left for the Republican Party around the time of Reagan - working-class, often rural, mostly white voters, at least the ones who stuck with the Democratic Party after all these years. The very Democrats who were supposed to be the most conservative turned out to be the most receptive to a self-proclaimed socialist candidate, while a coalition of minorities and wealthier urban and suburban whites were not. Independents in particular went overwhelmingly for Sanders. I would never have predicted this sort of result before the election.

When Sanders first launched his presidential bid, I was afraid that he would win only the college-aged liberal types and that would be it, with Hillary steamrolling him everywhere outside Vermont. This hasn't been true at all - he actually did build a broad coalition including the aforementioned young people but also red-state, rural, small-town, and generally poorer white Democrats. Had he done better with minorities he would likely have won the nomination. He did terribly with them, so he deserves to lose, but it is quite conceivable that a candidate who is like Sanders but is perceived better in the black and/or Hispanic communities may easily carry the nomination in the future.

Obviously now Sanders is dead in the water and certain people will enjoy watching him and his supporters grasping at straws until he concedes after the last wave of primaries (CA et al). He'll concede graciously, in a manner not unlike that of a certain other losing Dem nominee in 2008, but not until all the results are in.

 

[BvBPL]

I saw that on meet the press this morning. He's right, but he presented it in exactly the wrong way.

 

[Kennigit]

Is it accurate? Google should be able to give estimates of the voter breakdown so far and what demographics he wins well in or loses badly in, e.g. he does lose the black vote to hillary very badly. Like downtown says as far as I know he mainly does well wth white liberals and the young.

But even those quick results aren't really adjusted for all factors, e.g. if you accurately represented votes by income young people might even skew statistics towards bernie doing better in "poor" demographics as many young people may have 0 income despite having access to considerably better assets or total worth. So if someone spits out "well if voter participation was higher for people with <5,000 income bernie would have won!" that may not really reflect being a result of low income = social class ("poor")


Is it fair? It might be if you extrapolate on Bernie a little bit. The American voter doesn't always vote for what is in their "best" personal interests, often on tax structure too. Many people would oppose, say, an increase on capital gains taxes with the thought of "I don't want to pay more taxes" even though comparatively few people actually pay such taxes. A quick google search brings up politifact from 2008 on Obama campaign statements for raising capital gain taxes, where 11% of people making under 200k paid capital gains and 51% above 200k paid, but certainly more than 11% of middle class people get convinced that they'd have to pay more taxes, which would not be true. If people really got active in the political process and voted for their best personal interests, you'd have a more progressive platform on economics (wages, education, healthcare, etc)


As far as being harsh on Bernie, he does lack specificity in some plans or seems to not go into tougher truths; the Democrats do that in general though (e.g. is 4 year college for everyone for all degree programs something that makes sense?) while Republicans avoid truths altogether

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It would seem strange that Bernie Sanders, a candidate who has staked his entire campaign on fighting income inequality and providing direct assistance to the poor, has lost almost every state where income inequality is greatest. With the election virtually out of reach at this point, he points out one reason why he's probably going to lose. Poor people aren't voting.

Here's the quote:


I mean, Sanders isn't really wrong with the principle of this statement, but it's a huge reason why I am very personally skeptical of the idea of Sanders as a transformational politician, or that he represents some sort of "political revolution". If you aren't able to expand your coalition beyond, generally, educated white liberals and young people, what's to revolutionize?

Is Sanders accurate in his critique here, and is that fair? If he is, how does anybody go about changing this? Am I being too harsh on the guy?

Are they not voting at all, or are they just not voting for him?

The former is actually more important than the latter, as it needs to be addressed so that particular demographic can become more engaged with the political process.

 

[Joecoolyo]

This is both the best time and the worst time for a populist revolution. The internet gives the ability for a small unknown politician to rocket to the big leagues. But at the same time media consolidation and corporatism can stifle and manipulate a message to the older generation, who relies upon the controlled media for their news.

We've already seen how the plutocrats and oligarchs work actively to shut-Bernie out of the news cycle, not only challenging him when he does make headlines but relegating his stories to footnotes or nothing at all. At the same time (and for the longest time) Trump was the only media story. For those who casually followed the process, the only nomination occurring right now would be the Republican one. The Democratic one was nonexistent, as Hillary was coronated before putting her hat into the ring and she's one of the established elite. Her name recognition is so massive as well that she doesn't need news coverage, like Bernie, Trump, or Cruz, to actually reach out to the massive older voting bloc that controls the primary process.

That way when it came to actually voting, people knew little of Sanders and would go for Clinton out of name recognition, despite the fact they when told of Sanders they liked him more. His revolution is ailing because its taken so long for his name to actually come to the forefront of discussion. And when he did, the corporatists actively worked to undermine it by challenging his stories (look at the absolute crapfest of coverage in regards to his Vatican visit) or pushing him off to the side by scheduling debates at the worst possible times.

The second bigger aspect is that the system is rigged against revolution. This is very plainly seen, especially in New York, Arizona, and Chicago. Massive amounts of voter fraud, dropping hundreds of thousands of people from the Democratic party roll (and even going in and changing people's registrations) combined with consolidation of voting sites the cutting down of times meant that his biggest supporters couldn't actually vote. Bernie relies heavily not only on the impoverished, but independents as well. The Democratic party has gamed the system to favor the elite's choice, not the populace's.

The revolution exists, Bernie has shown that much. What his campaign has displayed more though is that the elite, rich, and corporatists still have massive influence upon the electoral system. They can actively manipulate their controlled media sources, commit vote fraud, and change the rules to make sure their preferred voters get a say and any who want change are disenfranchised. Grassroots efforts to challenge the base cannot occur if those who would support it not only don't hear of the effort, but cannot vote. What Bernie has shown is that the Democratic party is decrepit, and change will not come until it is overthrown.

 

[innonimatu]

No, you'll do fine with Hilary, ie the Trump she'll lose to. Sanders wasn't anything Great, but compared to the rest you have as candidates he would be the saner option.

Agree with this.

If you are asking why he didn't win the votes there, chances are most of Usaia is way too afraid of 'the socialism'+ Hila inheriting the black vote due to not good reasons. Less chances of this being due to reason worth examining.

But not with this. The reason is simple: the poor are dumb. Not PC to say it, but it is the reason why they are poor also. They are way too easy to fool. And Hillary has a very good propaganda machine backing her. Most of them actually still believe she will be good for them, despite all past evidence - the poor sods.

What Bernie has shown is that the Democratic party is decrepit, and change will not come until it is overthrown.

He had a good shot, but is by now very unlikely to prevail. And too old to fight another one. The best thing he can do now is do destroy the Democratic Party. Go openly, totally hostile on Hillary and her backers at the DNC. She will lose anyway, but make sure to pin the blame on the Clinton clique, paint them and their alliances as electorally toxic. Perhaps someone better will pick up the pieces later.

 

[Bootstoots]

He's not going to do that. He is actually a Democrat* who would much rather Clinton win than Trump or Cruz, and who wants the party to survive. Nothing he's done so far would suggest that he would rather damage the Democratic Party than have Hillary become their candidate. If she loses in November then his backers might reconsider what they're doing, but the Clinton clique you refer to makes up essentially the entire party establishment, so I doubt they'll pivot very far toward the populist left.

*The Independent label is pretty meaningless - he has always caucused with the Dems and has voted with them something like 98% of the time. His views fit well within the House Progressive Caucus, which he is a member of.

 

[Takhisis]

So if he's not a Democrat&#8230; then why, or, rather, how is he standing up for their nomination?

 

[Bootstoots]

I think he joined the party last year.

 

[Takhisis]

I see.

 

[Hygro]

I mean, Sanders isn't really wrong with the principle of this statement, but it's a huge reason why I am very personally skeptical of the idea of Sanders as a transformational politician, or that he represents some sort of "political revolution". If you aren't able to expand your coalition beyond, generally, educated white liberals and young people, what's to revolutionize?

I find it very interesting that irrespective of degree of progressive, the defining difference I've seen between a Sanders supporter and a Clinton supporter is experience following and discussing politics. More experience trends a Clinton preference, even if that person's politics is to the left of Sanders.

A lot of us have been like, "this guy isn't speaking raw truth, he talks in huffpo headlines"

 

[BvBPL]

Of course sanders actually has experience as an elected executive, Clinton does not.

Also, since he became a senator, he's a former member of the house progressive caucus. Just a point of clarification.

 

[warpus]

Bernie supporters are actually a coalition of a couple of different types of white people.

I've noticed on voting summary maps that parts of the U.S. with heavy black populations tend to favour Hillary by quite a large margin.

Why is that? I'd have thought that Bernie's civil rights record would have given him a far more favourable support from those parts of the country. What do they see in Hillary that they don't see in Bernie?

 

[ls612]

My whole take on this is that if you can't get 10% your supporters (approximately the primary turnout) to spend 10-20 minutes one time to vote for you your revolution probably doesn't have legs. Seriously, if people, of any political persuasions, cared enough to participate en masse they'd be amazed how much change they could make. Ask the Republicans who lost their party to the Tea Party and Trump.

 

[Bootstoots]

I find it very interesting that irrespective of degree of progressive, the defining difference I've seen between a Sanders supporter and a Clinton supporter is experience following and discussing politics. More experience trends a Clinton preference, even if that person's politics is to the left of Sanders.

A lot of us have been like, "this guy isn't speaking raw truth, he talks in huffpo headlines"

On this note, I think it is worth noting that Sanders support is much stronger in caucuses than in primaries. To the extent that caucusing reflects political engagement, this would suggest that it is actually Sanders supporters who are more politically engaged.

That said, it is true that Clinton is far more politically skilled than Sanders, and that her proposals are much more real, i.e. stuff that could actually get done and how to do it, than his are. She possesses a much better understanding of the details of just about every issue, so a person who is voting on the basis of policy knowledge and skill would vote for Clinton. That is of secondary importance to Sanders voters, who are generally looking for substantial changes to the US political system (granted this would clearly be less than a "revolution", whatever his rhetoric).

My vote was essentially based on how a Sanders presidency would shift the Overton window to the economic left (i.e. toward social democracy, not Chavismo or something) of where it is today, and I didn't care so much about the shallower depth of Sanders' policy expertise vs Clinton. I mean it would be better to have a candidate who was both to the economic left and have a thorough command of policy, but you have to vote from the choices you have. I would prefer Warren to both of them for that reason, although it's possible she wouldn't come across as well in a presidential campaign.

 

[metalhead]

I've noticed on voting summary maps that parts of the U.S. with heavy black populations tend to favour Hillary by quite a large margin.

Why is that? I'd have thought that Bernie's civil rights record would have given him a far more favourable support from those parts of the country. What do they see in Hillary that they don't see in Bernie?

Bernie's civil rights record is awfully thin. Hillary's is far more substantial. She has spent an awfully long time cultivating relationships with black communities pretty much all across the country, and especially in the South, and she has actually worked in the trenches protecting black youth from the excesses of the legal system as a law student and young lawyer.

There is a trust built up there, which Bernie barely even tried to overcome. It didn't help that Bernie was trying to build himself up as some kind of civil rights fighter, when John Lewis quite correctly pointed out that Bernie was not part of the fight for very long and was building his thin record into a whole lot more than what it was.

 

[warpus]

Interesting, I was under the impression that Bernie did a lot more, way back in the day. But I based that on nothing but pictures of him from that time marching, protesting, etc. while no pictures like that of Hillary have ever come out.

Hillary has always looked so crazy to me, when she smiles it's like she's trying to look as normal as possible, but doesn't quite pull it off. It's too bad Bernie wasn't able to reach out to the masses.. but.. how would you reach those masses, anyway, if he wasn't able to? What could be done differently?

 

[Kyriakos]

Interesting, I was under the impression that Bernie did a lot more, way back in the day. But I based that on nothing but pictures of him from that time marching, protesting, etc. while no pictures like that of Hillary have ever come out.

Hillary has always looked so crazy to me, when she smiles it's like she's trying to look as normal as possible, but doesn't quite pull it off. It's too bad Bernie wasn't able to reach out to the masses.. but.. how would you reach those masses, anyway, if he wasn't able to? What could be done differently?

And if you have campaign people (as she does) trying desperately to make you appear as human as possible, and you still come across as a psychotic misanthrope, you can tell how good a candidate Hilary is.

Though she likely will lose to Trump, another awesome candidate.

Hilary. Trump. Cruz. Cthulhu indeed is now the lesser evil.

Maybe a topic of interest would be whether Trump will keep US isolationist in the first phase of the war to come in the middle east. Ultimately, though, he will do huge (sorry, i mean yuge) harm all around.