The Democratic Party at the national level is centrist on economic issues and liberal on social policy. Bill Clinton led the movement within the party to move the party more towards the middle. The DNC simply carries out that thinking. But the super delegate design is questionable as was the favoritism they showed towards Hillary. The DNC's mission is to get an electable candidate and they saw Sanders as an unelectable candidate (they should be strictly neutral but probably naive to think they ever are neutral).

Which he almost certainly was. First, he is too left-wing to get elected. Secondly, he is too old. Thirdly, the Democratic candidates other than Sanders challenging Hillary were an extremely weak group--Sanders was able to easily stand out from them. Sander's appeal was basically that he had a message that he strongly believed in that resonated with certain voters, particularly young voters.

The thesis I guess that because voters are sick with politicians telling them a bunch of things and then not delivering and/or that they are essentially corrupted by establishment interests that Sander's sincerity would stand out. But I think it is a stretch to think because voters want a candidate they can believe in they are going to move far to the left and support a socialist candidate.

What about Trump--doesn't the fact that he won show that it was possible for an outsider candidate with non-establishment ideas to win this election? I think the Trump candidacy will be studied for a long time. From what I can tell Trump was able to connect with voters in various ways: (1) through the Trump brand, his image as a wealthy billionaire, as a tough straight-shooting non pc, non-elitist who lives the kind of ostentatious lavish life that some working-classpeople imagine they would, (2) his style of conversational speech allowed him to connect with his audience on an intimate level, making it seem like he was talking to them, (3) he also used ambiguity in his speeches to appeal to different sectors of the electorate. Trump used the tricks he used in business where he developed his public persona as a brand so he could make licensing deals where he could make money with no risk, and used communication methods to win sales/make deals. So use of branding, connecting to the audience/customers through a certain conversational style, and appealing to disparate segments of the audience by making statements that could be interpreted in different ways were techniques that Trump mastered in business and simply transplanted over to politics. And it worked.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/ ... ent=safari
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... yle-214391
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/d ... calculated

While Sanders was thought to be cool by some young voters he was not using the very manipulative (but effective) style that Trump was using. And on economic policy except for some vague statements on trade Trump was not that out of the mainstream. And again different parts of the electorate could believe what they want to believe ("he is going to stop American jobs from going overseas" and "he's just saying that to appease certain voters; he has no record of protectionism and he is saying things about taxes and doing away with financial regulation that I like")

With Sanders on the other hand, he means what he says and says what he means. He is not manipulating people. So for him to be elected the "mushy-middle" would have to become the "mushy left-wing." I think that's a big-stretch.

I agree Bernie would have lost worse than Clinton. I disagree about the Woman part though, I don't think that played a role at all. For those very few who did think it a minus (VERY few) there were as many or more that thought it a plus.

But Bernie was just far far too liberal to appeal to the masses. He would have energized the younger voters no doubt. But he would have alienated the middle of the road voters. In addition to his too liberal ways,his lack of religious beliefs, his being seemingly "old", his New York City accent etc, these would have harmed his being electable to the majority of Americans (in my opinion). While he was also a bit of an "outsider" I don't think it was enough to counter that outsider status that got Trump elected.

I think the notion that encouraging people to vote for Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman (or condemning them if they didn't) turned out to be a bad idea. The fact that she was the official presidential candidate showed that the "glass ceiling" they talked about had already been broken. She was just not able to climb through it, to put a gloss on that metaphor.

Freeman, I agree with the points you made. Trump was able to successfully use his skills in the campaign to help win. He was able to win over the base of people that the Democrats like to say they champion: the poor, the ill-educated, the oppressed. This base just happened to be composed of a lot of white people, rather than minorities. But it was this working class that would have been voting Democratic, not Republican. Had it not been Trump, but one of the other Republican candidates, I think this group of "deplorables" would have either not voted, or stayed Democratic. Unfortunately, Clinton chose the wrong way to deal with these voters. Instead of trying to win them back, she insulted them and revealed a Democratic party that is only interested in them if they vote Democratic. And the conventional Republican party would have overlooked them as well, I think.

I don't think this group is the crowd of bigots, racists, and knuckledragers that the Left have foolishly and tragically tried to portray them as; and I think this will hurt the Democratic party for several elections to come. But it falls to the Republicans and Trump to see if they can keep them on their side for once. One can only hope that somebody will take Trump's phone away or get his Twitter account canceled.

An interesting take on Trump's appeal.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11144938

Interesting? Yes
True? don't think so, there was a lot of nonsense about racism stated as factual. Apparently, if you are a Conservative, you are a sexist bigot. I found that rather repugnant and demeaning, I am Conservative, I have many friends who also are, none of us are bigots or racists.
The whole "holier than though" position this writer assumed was distasteful to say the least. He took an ounce of truth and turned it into a pound of garbage.

I am fairly confident that if you re-read the article he never said that his comments regarding bigotry applied to all conservatives but only a sub-set. I agree that he should have taken more care to define the group of people he thinks are bigots. He says tens of millions of conservatives have strict father hierarchy and then many of them are poor or middle of class and many of that group are bigots. So he could be talking about millions of people or a much smaller number--he is a linguist, he should be more precise.

Personally, I think that the number of people in the United States who consciously are bigots is pretty small.. So I think he was overstating his case. Nowadays, most people don't sit there and believe that since they are white they are better than other groups or since they are male they are better than women. But stereotypes and making assumptions about people and their likely characteristics is relevant. I think the more a person deals with other groups and get to know members of a group the less likely they will retain stereotypical underlying beliefs and stereotypes about that group. It's an overstatement to say that a lot of Trump voters were bigots, but I think it is also incorrect to say that race and gender beliefs had no impact on the election.

Every child is socialized by his parents, his peers, his teachers and of course television, newspapers, and the internet. That socialization basically conveys proper behavior. It also conveys a lot of information about the characteristics of different groups, suitable roles for men and women,, etc.

This is a country that was founded primarily by white, protestant men who originally came from the British Isles. We're still almost 3/4 white. Yes, the Irish were not liked when they first came over, people from Eastern Europe were not liked when they emigrated at the beginning of the 20th Century, but at this point in time being white is what matters.

To think that a country that was founded by white males, was ruled almost entirely by white males until the 1960s, where the media has been and continues to be controlled by mostly white males would within a short period of time become a place where race and gender make no difference is ridiculous. If you are my age you have been bombarded with a huge amount of positive images of white males, of white males being heroes in movies, of images of white men in power, of white men as president. And you have also been show a lot of negative images of other racial groups and of images of women in stereotypical roles (i.e., not in positions of power) .Yeah, it's changing, it's a lot better than it was before, but no it ain't equal.. That is a what a lot of white males believe and if they suffer any detriment because they are white they whine about it incessantly, not noticing all the benefits they have had from being white and male.

Yeah, it's over the top to call Trump voters bigots. But it's also over the top to say that white males don't still have an advantage. We have to take the world as it currently is, not exaggerate or see it with rose-tinted glasses.

freeman3 wrote:Personally, I think that the number of people in the United States who consciously are bigots is pretty small.

I completely disagree. The number is huge.

geo

I completely disagree. The number is huge

.

This reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall where Anne is complaining to her physciatrist...
" The sex is constant, twice a week".
and Alfie is complaining to his physciatrist,
"We hardly ever have sex. Maybe twice a week."

What do each of you think is the number? Maybe you actually agree, only one of you is appalled by the number and the other is accepting of it?

I think its probably at least around 15% . Thatsthe number that still tell pollsters that the disagree with inter racial marriage.

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Personally, I think that the number of people in the United States who consciously are bigots is pretty small.

I completely disagree. The number is huge.

Upon what do you base that? And, how are you defining "bigot?"

Also, do you suppose any of the reason you might feel that way is your locale? Are you at all concerned you may live in an echo chamber (NB: a question, not an accusation)?

rickyp wrote:I think its probably at least around 15% . Thatsthe number that still tell pollsters that the disagree with inter racial marriage.

Polls are so reliable, eh?

A Gallup poll from 2013 indicated that 70 percent of whites approved of interracial marriage in 2013. However, only 62 percent of white high school graduates did. I am confident that this kind of polling is pretty accurate by the way, given the nature of the question. But feel free to post different polling with different results.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11836/accept ... -high.aspx

Does being against interracial marriage make one a bigot? I don't know but the main point is that 38% of white high school graduates show some favoritism towards whites over blacks. And probably with regard to other minorities. Hard to believe that was not a significant factor in Trump getting elected.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2014/12/18/multiracial-marriage-on-the-rise/

Apparently the statistics show that interracial marriage is increasing 2100% since 1960.

In 1960, before immigration levels to the United States started to rise, multiracial marriages constituted only 0.4 percent of all U.S. marriages. That figure increased to 8.4 percent in 2010 and for recent newlyweds, 15 percent.

Look at the trend lines on the graph I linked. The numbers are increasing. Perhaps the perception of a problem should be dwindling as much as the actual problem.

fate

Polls are so reliable, eh

Not bad. The national polls predicted a 4% popular vore advatage for Clinton. That wasn't far offf.
If you democratically elected your president she'd be the president elect.

Freeman,

Cite as much "evidence" as you care to. There were plenty of swing voters out there who very well may have voted for Sanders over Trump. In the end, swing voters demonstrated they went with an anti-establishment candidate (not the popular vote of course) but the votes that mattered. Sanders was an anti-establishment candidate. He was cheated. We will never know how he could have faired against Trump.

What I find amusing are the multitude of comments that self assuredly pronounce what would have happened. This gravitation toward certitude on your part and the part of so many others is what characterized opinions concerning Trump during the primaries as well. Very few people here believed he could win. (I was the first to suggest it....December 15, 2015 in another thread entitled, "Maybe Trump's Right?). A good many wrote him off. And the reasons for doing so at the time were legion.

Even now, after Trump shook up the political arena like never before proving so many wrong, pundits continue to write Sanders off as, at best, cute. I believe you were one of the many who even cited Sanders age as problematic. He's 75 years old. Trump is 70 and the other one was 69. A 5/6 year difference is part of your rational? Give me a break.

FACT:
We will never know the kind of momentum he may have built if given the same access to DNC $ as the other one. That's because the DNC cheated him and prevented him from having the same kind of access to the war chest.

FACT:
We will never know, if given the same exposure to the media that the other one had, if Sanders might have appealed to the swing voters when stacked up against Trump. That's because the DNC cheated him and prevented him from ever having the same kind of media exposure.

And if after this election you have the audacity to cite polls as if they mattered, you weren't paying attention. Sure there may have been one or two polls that were within reason concerning the popular vote. But the fact is, the American polling industry is a joke worth forgetting. It is a shameful industry, overrated, biased and more than likely paid for or at least manipulated by political operatives.

Freeman, you bought into a narrative about Sanders. You also bought into a narrative about Trump. I say you were wrong on both accounts to do so, not just the latter. And attempting to create a stop gap exception to Trump's win that his election will be studied for some time doesn't get you off the hook.

Your opinion, with all of its evidence based rationality was wrong about Trump. That fact does not necessitate that for this reason you are also wrong about Sanders but in my opinion you are. I will forever wonder what could have been. And Wasserman getting fired for seeing to it that Sanders never had the same kind of access is not enough.

rickyp wrote:fate

Polls are so reliable, eh

Not bad. The national polls predicted a 4% popular vore advatage for Clinton. That wasn't far offf.
If you democratically elected your president she'd be the president elect.

Pretty impressive. No, not the polls--the number of errors in such a short post.

1. Clinton won the popular "vore" (sic) by an "advatage" (sic) of less than two points, which is nowhere near four in a national race.

2. We don't live in a pure democracy. That's not our system. She lost. "Bigly."

3. You have no barking idea if she would have won in a simple system of "whoever gets the most votes wins." If that was our system, the campaign and the turnout models would be considerably different--at best, it is an unknowable.