home

Sanders Complains About Party Staffing, Wants Results "Recreated"

Too much. CNN reports Bernie Sanders' campaign is claiming 90 precincts were inadequately staffed by the Democratic Party and wants the vote recreated in those precincts. Wolf Blitzer seems truly perplexed and asks, "What exactly does that mean"?

Here's the result tally and map from the Iowa Democratic Party's caucus website at midnight Iowa time.

More...

Here's a video example of Sanders supporters claiming voter fraud by Hillary. Are they joking? Coincidentally, this is at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, which where the caucus I attended in 2008 was held (in the school auditorium). The attendees look much less diverse than in 2008 -- and a lot older. Clinton got 232 votes and Sanders got 224 votes and 3 people were missing after being counted. The entire group was offered the chance the vote for a recount when 3 Sanders supporters complained, and they overwhelmingly rejected it.

Here's a video from the same caucus showing Bernie's people counting his votes.

< Hillary's Iowa Speech: The Real Winner Stands Up | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Bernie Just Changed the Democratic Party (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:37:39 AM EST
    Democrats have some messy internal business to deal with: Bernie Sanders, promoting an American version of People Power, has confirmed his capture of the Party's under-forty wing, which means trouble for Hillary Clinton.

    The age gap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters was huge. According to the entrance polls, which wrongly predicted a Clinton victory, Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group. Clinton, by contrast, was largely reliant on the middle-aged and the elderly. Among forty-something voters, she won by five percentage points. Among the over-fifties, she won by more than twenty per cent.


    - John Cassidy, The New Yorker

    depends on whether or not (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    those people stay in the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Hope and change, again (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    Uh huh.

    Parent
    Bernie's message (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    is not Obama's

    More "a pox on both your houses" than "we can all work together"

    Not so much "hope and change" as "despair and anger"

    The difference matters.  Young people are angry for a reason and the Democratic party would be wise to pay attention.  You better believe Trump is, even if the rest of the Republicans aren't there yet.

    Parent

    Found this an interesting perspective: (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    For all of his skill in outmaneuvering Clinton, in driving his message through, in sparking people's passions, Sanders is the beneficiary of forces beyond his, or Clinton's, control. Why has the Democratic Party been shifting left? It's not because of Bernie Sanders. It's because of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, women's rights activists and climate change activists and immigrants rights activists and LGBT activists. As ever, it is the power of movements--of people pushing the boundaries, people going into the streets, people forcing the scope of discourse to open up and to move--that has trickled down into the political process. There were people waiting for Bernie Sanders. The best idea he ever had was to show up.

    Link

    And a lot of people who were waiting for Bernie are younger people, many of them looking for a leader, someone to harness the energies of these various movements and organize them for political action.

    I think there's hope for change within this movement, with the driving emotions being less about anger, and more about frustration and impatience.

    Parent

    Can I be the first to say it? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    I'm really tired of hearing about kids and wth they think.

    Maybe I'm getting a little crotchety as I approach my late 40's, but while I can appreciate younger folks perspective, I think we place entirely too much emphasis on the wants and needs of a group that can still largely benefit from the safety net of parents and generally have less financial risk than most.

    No offense to the yutes.

    Parent

    you can think what you want (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    But this:

    "generally have less financial risk than most."

    Flies in the face of all statistics that show  this generation is significantly worse off financially than previous generations.  Maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with their support of a socialist.

    And "voters under 40" - not exactly all kids living off their parents.  Not to mention the 40-50 age bracket was pretty well split down the middle.

    As for the "20% of voters" below you - he is winning over 40% of the Dem primary, and Hillary has about 60% (and that's being generous to Hillary).  That "20%" number is only relevant if you consider his 40% to be a hard ceiling, and could easily apply to Hillary as well (only winning 30% of all voters!).

    Parent

    Worse off financially (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    what does that mean for the youth?  Harder to find a job or at risk of losing home/job/retirement?  The former is the result of globalization and not something a president can fix w/o the support of business.

    I can totally understand his appeal to those that have little to lose looking to support someone who promises them something for nothing - other than their time.

    Parent

    It means (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:47:00 AM EST
    No hope for the future.  It means it's harder to even get to the point where you are breaking even.  It means you can't begin to save up for a house when you start out $40,000+ in the hole.  It means you can't begin to save up for a house when your wages don't keep up with inflation and housing costs are skyrocketing.

    It means you have nothing to lose - at an age when you should already have something to lose.  Bernie won everyone under 40, and basically split the 40-50 demographic.  Not exactly all spring chickens.

    Parent

    That's tough (none / 0) (#99)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    I was well over 30 when I purchased my first house.

    You know what?  I survived living in apartments.  I had student loans too.  This is not news.  Don't go to an Ivy league college, go to your state university.

    Point is we are often victims of the choices we make, not always circumstances.

    Parent

    that's nice for you (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    But I don't know if you've noticed that rents are also at an all time high.  Plenty of people survive living in apartments, but you can't save money that way anymore.

    Also, yea, you had student loans, but don't pretend like they are anything on the scale they are today, because the numbers don't back that up.  And I don't know if you've been paying attention lately but State Universities aren't exactly cheap anymore either.  You can easily graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt from a state university.  More expensive schools - you're talking hundreds of thousands.

    The economic reality is fundamentally different for young people today.

    Parent

    Scale is irrelevant (none / 0) (#121)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    the fact is, I had significant debt when I left college also - followed me throughout my twenties and into my thirties.  It certainly impacted my purchasing power and my credit history - so I was forced to make choices.  I don't claim that this entitled me to any special treatment however - no more than any other person out there.

    My parents didn't have money, I worked since I was 14 years old.  You know what, I'm better for persevering through.

    I certainly grant that I was fortunate.  However, the fact is, there will always be winners and losers in capitalism, not everyone will obtain the brass ring.  A combination of skill, hard work and luck is needed.

    Youth need to understand this.

    Parent

    I understand where you're coming from... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    I never had no money, college wasn't for me so I dodged that debt bullet...through hard work and luck (mostly luck) I survive and sometimes even thrive through frugality and lack of offspring...and of course, a little help from my friends.

    But that's no reason not to make it easier for everybody to get by...young and old alike.  Just because we dodged bullets in a rigged economy that benefits too few at the expense of the many is no reason to resist change.  The economic model we have survived (so far) is not sustainable.  We saved capitalism from itself twice before (Fair Deal & New Deal), time for another upgrade before the system crashes.

    Parent

    What, no bootstraps? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    Is there something wrong with making it easier for people to win?  To allowing them the freedom to obtain an education that will open more doors for them?  That allows them not to have to burden their parents, or take on the burden themselves, of college education whose cost to students far exceeds its actual cost?

    Let me ask you this: why do we stop educating people for free when they graduate from high school?  If I had to guess, it's because back in the day - a long way back - people could actually make a good living with a high school diploma in hand.  Is that still true?  It would not seem so.  

    So, why would we go out of our way to keep financial barriers in place for those who want and need more education, but can't afford it?

    No one's going to tell the Ivy League, or any other private college that it has to provide free educations for anyone; but if we can provide a free public education through high school, why can't we provide higher education at public institutions on the same basis?

    We are a better society when we are an educated society, when we make opportunities for everyone.

    I don't know, I guess I'm not one of those people who believes that whatever struggles I've had must also be suffered by my children; I don't live by "if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you" but maybe you do.  

    Don't get me wrong; I'm also not one of those people who made sure my children never failed at anything, or who protected them from the slights and stings of growing up.  

    Young people are the future; they always have been.  I happen to think that improving their future improves mine, but I guess you don't agree.

    Whatever my children learned from me, I've learned a lot from them about how it is for a young person to live in today's world, and that's why I want more and better for them and am not content for them to have to live a life that is no better than mine.

    Parent

    Yeah well I'm glad you feel that way (none / 0) (#154)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    You know who's the future for me?  My kids, my family.  That's who I'll be looking to take care of.  I'm happy for you that you're OK w/paying more into the system.  Sorry, but right now, I can't afford to do that.  Maybe later, who knows?  I pay a significant amount of taxes already w/no compliant.  You show me how we're going to pay for that w/o significantly depreciating the life I've worked hard for, then we can talk.

    And that's not selfish IMO, so please don't respond if that's what you feel you need to say.   Your comments would be much better received, if you left off assumptions like, "I guess you don't X because Y."  I am very much attuned to giving my kids more than I had, thank you very much, and am already doing that, thank you again.

    Parent

    sources for that (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    rent

    "The cost of renting a home in the U.S. has risen to its least affordable levels ever, taking up a record proportion of income in most major cities, according to a study from property website Zillow."

    Student Loan Debt

    "The average class of 2015 graduate with student-loan debt will have to pay back a little more than $35,000, according to an analysis of government data by Mark Kantrowitz, publisher at Edvisors, a group of websites about planning and paying for college. Even adjusted for inflation, that's still more than twice the amount borrowers had to pay back two decades earlier."

    "Not only is average debt rising, but more students are taking out loans to finance secondary education. Almost 71% of bachelor's degree recipients will graduate with a student loan, compared with less than half two decades ago and about 64% 10 years ago."

    "All together, total education debt-including federal and private education loans-will tally nearly $68 billion this year for graduates with a bachelor's degree and their parents, Mr. Kantrowitz estimates, a more than 10-fold increase since 1994."

    But please tell me again how nothing has changed and everyone should just be able to do exactly what you did.

    Point is, sometimes circumstances change and as a society we need to change with them.

    Parent

    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    via your link

    More millennials are moving into the real estate market. About 65 percent of people ages 25 to 34 years old surveyed by Realtor.com in mid-June said they plan to buy in the next three months.


    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    Here we are many months later and it hasn't happened yet.  I wonder why...

    Also - if they are on realtor.com taking a survey, they are probably people who are already looking to buy.  So 65% of people looking to buy are planning to buy.  That tells us nothing about the financial capability of the general population.

    BTW - how can scale be irrelevant?  If your expenses (rent and debt) are significantly higher and your wages are the same or lower, that margin you were living on in your 20s and 30s - gone.  

    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    extrapolate your situation or the situation of the area of the country that you live in with the rest of the country. Some places it's affordable to buy a house. in others it isn't.

    Parent
    I'm not extrapolating (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    I'm citing statistics about national trends in rent/affordability and rising debt levels.

    Sure, there are some people that doesn't apply to.

    That being said - whether it applies to them directly or not - it certainly applies to this generation as a whole.  Which is why almost 90% of people under 30 voted for Sanders the socialist.

    Parent

    The Argument is Valid... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    ...it costs more to go to college, and after the housing market fiasco, rents went through the roof.  I would also add that college grads have an increased unemployment rate while simultaneously making less.

    This is in general, and for me at least, when I graduated college, 1998 I was delighted with the job market, what it was paying, and my future prospects in general.  Thanks B Clinton.

    But I was fully aware of my circumstances and quite happy with it.  I think it's safe to say other grads are also fully aware of theirs and unlike me, they are not down with it.  The idea of paying off college loans for their entire lives, not being able to buy a home with a college education income, and seeing many college friends unable to find a descent job.

    The numbers show who wants change the most, which coincidentally seems to me like the people are getting the shaft from the establishment.  They are, there is no way around it, compare to me, who isn't that much older, they are getting screwed over.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    in a caucus in the 3rd most favorable state for Bernie. I don't see how Bernie is going to make people be able to afford houses though unless he's going to somehow erase their college debt if that is the problem that's keeping them from buying.

    Parent
    What I mean by scale is irrelevant (none / 0) (#150)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    Rent doesn't just go up in a vacuum.  Market forces drive rents up, i.e. there are people (and yes some of these are millennials) that can pay  higher rent that's why it goes up.  There's also (at least in NYC) a board that approves rent increases and how high rent can go.  Jobs must be there otherwise the market would not exist.

    In addition, my point is also that there is no way to quantify whether things were more difficult for me then vs. someone else now.  You can be sure, it was d@mn sure difficult for me at the time.  $hit, I just finished paying my loans off like 2-3 years ago.

    Parent

    What Scott said. (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:22:22 PM EST
    vicndabx: "[My] point is also that there is no way to quantify whether things were more difficult for me then vs. someone else now.  You can be sure, it was d@mn sure difficult for me at the time. $hit, I just finished paying my loans off like 2-3 years ago."

    We're saddling our kids and grandkids who choose to go to college with an obscene amount of personal debt, before they can even enter the workforce. The average amount which a college graduate with a bachelor's degree incurs over the course of his or her undergraduate studies is currently $29,000 nationwide.

    That figure rises sharply if that student attended college in a locale which has a high cost of living. In Hawaii, it's $41,000. And for those students who choose to pursue graduate degrees or professional credentials such as a J.D. or M.D., that amount often hits six figures before they're done.

    We didn't have to face that nearly ruinous hurdle when I was in college in the early '80s, because tax dollars subsidized about 75% of the cost to educate someone at a public university and further, that expenditure was regarded as an investment in our society's future.

    And in the interest of personal disclosure, I had a full-ride athletic scholarship in college, though that's irrelevant to this discussion. The point here is that a public university / college was eminently affordable for most kids of my generation, because those institutions were adequately funded by our state legislatures.

    That's clearly not the case any more. Fast forward to today, and public support and subsidies for higher education have since plummeted drastically, even as costs have risen. In the last eight fiscal years alone, that support has been effectively cut by 40%. To meet their costs, public universities have been forced to both fundraise aggressively, and just as aggressively raise tuition and fees on students several fold.

    Because tuition and fees now account for between 70-80% of the cost to educate the average student at a public university, it's therefore not surprising that increasing numbers of young people have been effectively denied the opportunity to pursue higher education, due to the endeavor having become cost prohibitive. Rather than looking upon our subsidies for public education as an investment in our future, we're now eyeing its cost as an unnecessary drain on our fiscal resources.

    That shift in public mindset is just insane. And the damnedest thing about it all is that our country is now being hoisted by its own self-made conundrum, compelled to import skilled technicians and professionals from countries like India, China and Korea, because our colleges are no longer able to graduate young Americans in sufficient numbers to meet the rising demand in the marketplace for those skills. And then to top it off, we have the nerve complain about immigration being a problem!

    Just because you got saddled with debt personally, doesn't make it right to force another generation of students to experience and endure the same. Speaking for myself only, I find it absurd for anyone to argue who actually had it worse, us or them, when it's the policy itself that's wrong, for having placed increasing numbers of young people in these untenable situations in the first place.

    Our society's entire current approach to funding higher education is financially punitive, morally obtuse and ultimately self-defeating, and we need to change it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Or... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    ...a housing market collapsed and a lot of folks who owned homes were sent into the renters market where prices skyrocketed and remain considerably higher than the collapse.

    Everything mentioned above can be quantified, like the cost of college, the amount of debt, unemployment/wage rates, the cost to rent, etc.

    And since we are roughly the same age, the notion that when we graduated college things were, more or less, the same is silly.  Clinton was still president and times we good for everyone, especially people coming out of college.  Much, much better than the past decade, again that can all be quantified, it's not opinion.

    Parent

    I Would Argue... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    ... because they are looking at their futures and seeing what a dismal job us older and wiser folks have done so far.

    This notion that we know better isn't really supported by reality IMO.  We are doing better than republicans but that is a pretty low bar.

    Those kids you are dismissing will be in control of the party before you know it, so instead of dissing them maybe listen to them, because they aren't complaining about nonsensical stuff, and the changes they want are changes we all want, some just think they are too hard to do, so why bother.


    Parent

    The under-40s have grown up (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    under "War Presidents," speaking of "dismal jobs." The last fifteen years have been an unending war in the middle east, with no hope or plan voiced by anyone for its conclusion.  Clinton would be just another establishment "War President."


    Parent
    Well, we can only hope that Clinton doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    adopt "I don't give a crap about young people" as a campaign strategy.

    I have two "young people" in my family - two daughters, ages 32 and 29, both of whom are married and have young children of their own.  I can assure you that their needs and concerns about where this country is heading are just as valid as any you or I might have, regardless of how much or how little safety net the older generation represents.

    Anyone who thinks only younger people are selfish need only read your comment to know otherwise.

    Parent

    Why on earth would Clinton adopt (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    an "I don't give a crap about young people" campaign strategy? She is not an idiot, nor is she a political neophyte who does not understand how elections are won.

    She has made it abundantly clear that she is aware of, and concerned about, the issues affecting every demographic- young, old, gay, straight, women, men,children, etc.

    She did not ignore the youth vote in Iowa. She will not ignore it anywhere else.

    Geez.

    Parent

    Huh, One Commenter Said That... (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    ...and with I am sure HRC wants those blocks, but they don't want her, at least not in Iowa, the young blocks crushed it.

    I also think R's want the black and hispanic vote, but like above, they don't want R's.  That is not the fault of the voter, it is a fault of the candidate IMO.

    If she could pick up that support, Sanders wouldn't be in the race.  Let's hope she can bring them over for the general, ops I keep forgetting hope is now a bad word and one we cannot associate with the HRC campaign.

    Parent

    She may not have ignored the youth vote (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    in Iowa, but they didn't come out to vote for her, did they?

    However much clarity she brings to articulating her familiarity with the issues of younger people, they aren't getting the message.  Do they not believe her?  Do they not trust her?  I don't know - but she sure as hell better figure it out.

    As someone who will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, and as someone who isn't under any illusions that it's going to be Sanders, what makes me a little queasy is how unwilling the Clinton supporters are to even acknowledge that this is a glaring weak spot for Clinton.

    I guess we will see soon enough if this was peculiar to Iowa, or if it's going to dog her everywhere, but I don't know how it helps Clinton, or the race in general, to ignore what the numbers are telling us: she's got a problem appealing to younger people.

    If she is the nominee - and I expect she will be - she's going to need the energized Sanders supporters to be just as energized to come out and vote for her.

    It's hard to imagine that somewhere, in a Clinton campaign strategy room, there isn't some serious discussion going on about how she can capture that demographic.  She may need to pivot, and as we all know, that isn't something she does well, or on a particularly timely or nimble basis.

    This isn't in the bag, there are no guarantees, and I would hope that the woman who believes she should be our next president, who is clearly brilliant in so many ways, should be able to take control of this before it's too late.

    Parent

    I'm quite sure they realize that weakness (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:22:17 PM EST
    and are doing what they can to mitigate it. At the end of the day the candidate is who the candidate is - if she pretends to be hip or youthful or anything else she is not, it rings false and is counterproductive.

    Youth turnout is never that fantastic. Candidates have learned to maximize the other demographics. I certainly expect whoever the Dem nominee is to do a whole lot better with younger voters than the GOP candidate, whoever it is, based purely on policy advocacy.
     

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    And that was Vic's point from the beginning.  He didn't say candidates shouldn't talk to issues that appeal to young voters - of course they should. But why should that be the MAIN focus in the coverage?  (I know, I know, because talking to senior citizens or middle aged single women isn't "sexy" and doesn't  create a "fun vibe" or pump up the numbers for a rally).

    But pointing this out, and pointing out  the fact that young voters aren't even half of the electorate, makes one "criticizing Sanders supporters".  Through the looking glass, indeed.

    Parent

    Thank the Lord someone understands (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Some days (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:41:07 PM EST
    It's like up is down around here.

    Parent
    Pointing out where Clinton is weak isn't (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    the same as saying the youth vote should be the main focus.

    I can't imagine you would be this vociferous about the coverage if it was Sanders getting nailed for not having strength with minorities - you'd be agreeing with it.  And you would be right to do so, since that is one of his weak points.

    You seem to want to minimize the effect of her not having strength among young voters, but I don't really understand why that makes sense, except that you don't seem to want to brook any criticism of her, on anything.

    [And just as an aside, could you stop speaking for liberal voters?  Talk about what your beloved centrists want, since that seems to be where you are politically, but you just have no credibility speaking for liberals.]

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    why people are extending my personal opinion to the Clinton campaign makes no sense.

    I'm not running for anything, just commenting on a blog.

    Parent

    god help the party (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:22:11 AM EST
    If she does.

    The "youth vote" didn't just win Obama the primary.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    So sayeth the mind-reader.

    How you get I'm selfish off a single blog comment is amazing.

    Lest people run up the ladder, let me clarify young people to mean "college aged."

    29 & 32 aren't young in my book.  29 & 32, you've worked (hopefully) for a number of years and are in family mode, not me me me me me mode.

    Parent

    Come On... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    ...we are specifically talking about the voting block for Sanders that he crushed.

    Here is the quote that lead to this thread:
    Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group.

    Translated:
     86%  17-24
     81%  25-29
     65%  30-39

    FWIW, lacking consideration of others is practically the definition of being selfish.

    Parent

    Again to reiterate (none / 0) (#107)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    no one is talking about lacking consideration.  I have a 17 year old brother, and 30 something year old first cousins who I care about deeply and worry over their options.  Wanting there to be opportunities is not the same as placing excessive (IMO) focus on who young people support in an election.

    Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society, opportunity is created by business, or, gov't working with business to create a growth environment.

    Parent

    Guess I Misread... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    I'm really tired of hearing about kids and wth they think.

    Who could possibly think you lack consideration of others...

    Parent

    Yes you did (none / 0) (#124)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    Misread


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    We put a lot of emphasis on a group of people that make up only around 20% of all voters.

    Parent
    I think that is very well stated (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    And I'm no kid.


    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    He couldn't even win with high voter turnout, in one of the three states that is his base - white, very liberal, and with lots of college kids.

    Parent
    But he came very close (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    A 74 year old socialist from Vermont promising higher taxes came very very close.
    Anne is right.  CST is right.   There is something in the air.  And possibly the water.  Ok last part was a joke.  

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    But while he won "very liberal" voters by 29 points last night, he lost "somewhat liberal" voters by 6 and "moderates" by 23.

    Guess who makes up the majority of the Democratic Party?  (Hint: it isn't the "very liberal).

    Last night Sanders won the younger voters, which was only 18% of the total electorate last night (and that's down from 22% in 2008). And there was a huge drop in the mumber of first time caucus goers - down 13 points to 44% from 2008. It's kind of hard to start a "political revolution" when you can't even bring out tons of new voters and lots of young people (especially young people who are not white, middle class college students).

    Sanders will do really well in New Hampshire, but I don't see a path for him after that.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    Put down the calculator and back away slowly.

    I'm not talking about percentages.  I'm not talking about "Bernies chances of winning last NH" which I agree are pretty close to zero.  That's not what I'm talking about and neither were the comments I referred to.  We are talking about this -


     It's because of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, women's rights activists and climate change activists and immigrants rights activists and LGBT activists.

    This and the fact that people are hurting and feel abandoned and forgotten by a corrupt and rigged system.

    Bernie is talking to that.  Trump is talking to that.  
    Hillary damn well better find a way to start talking to that.

    Parent

    She is. Have you been to a Clinton event? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    I have.

    If you're relying on the media, well. . . .

    Parent

    I have been (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    To several.  She is trying.  The fact is she is not doing a great job of connecting with that part of the electorate.  And I don't mean hipsters distracted by the new shiny object.  
    I have no solution.   I'm just point out a problem as I see it as a Hillary supporter.  If I had solutions I would be getting paid to comment on blogs.
    What I see is there is something new in the political air and if she could find a way to tap into it she would walk into the White House without breaking a sweat.
    From what I've seen she as been, IMO, a better candidate in the last few days.  We have seen this before.  She becomes a better candidate when she is losing.   Another reason to thank Bernie.  
    Get angry maybe.  That's seems popular.

    Parent
    And it's even harder to explain away (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    Sanders' tie as the product of kids and first timers if the demographics didn't show up, which is what you said.

    Parent
    Not surprisingly, you completely missed (4.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    the point.

    And to turn your so-called logic on its head, Hillary couldn't even win by more than a hair, with high voter turnout, in a state where just 8 short months ago, she was up by 40 points.  40.  From 40 to less than 1%.  Give it another week, and she easily could have lost.

    I'd be more worried about the candidate who couldn't hold a lead than one who took it away, but to each his own.

    Parent

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    ...had the coins fell evenly, it would have been a tie.

    To act like this close race was determined by anything other than luck is not dealing with reality.  She won 6 of 6 coins tosses, the odds of that happening, 1 in 64, or 1.6% chance.

    Parent

    And, again, that didn't matter (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    because the coin tosses didn't determine delegates.

    The reporter who started this has apologized for misreporting.

    Parent

    Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    From Vox (linked in another of my commentd)

    The delegate totals that are reported publicly -- 689 and 686 -- are estimates of the delegates each candidate would have at a statewide convention. But individual caucuses don't pick state delegates -- at least not directly. Each caucus picks a set of delegates to a county convention, which then selects delegates for a district convention ... which then selects delegates for the statewide convention.

    That makes four levels to the caucus process -- and there are a lot more delegates at the county level (the level for which caucuses assigned delegates Monday) than at the state level. So while a coin toss at a precinct caucus definitely gives the winner an advantage, it's not as straightforward as "winning a coin toss gets you an extra delegate in the statewide count."

    Do I think this I a stupid way to do it?  Yes.

    Parent

    The Coin tosses (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    as further explained on MSNBC did not result in an award of the delegate surrogates (one of the seven hundred or so) that will attend the Iowa convention. It was in effect a sub-category, a precinct within a precinct. Not a final vote that was awarded.    

    It is a complicated mess, but the coin tosses were just part of an overall vote count that resulted in an award of the delegates to the Iowa convention, where the actual delegates will be selected.

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    Since Hillary HAS been working for many of these causes for decades, and talking about them, especially women's rights, I would say that someone needs to learn their history.  And yes, Bernie is talking to one or two of those issues too. But not all of them.

    I'm not worried about any candidate.  That's for their staffs to do.  What frightens me is seeing these young voters who buy into the Rush Limbaugh et al meme of "trustworthiness" and "honesty", and young women not appreciating what it has taken for Hillary to get to this position.  They don't have to vote for her, but their dismissiveness is breathtaking and shows a real lack of knowledge and detail.  SMH.

    And while they didn't expect it to be 50-50, the Clinton people said as far back as July that this was going to be tight.  If you chose to believe the media narrative that it would be a blowout early on (the "coronation" meme), well you only have yourself to blame for believing such nonsense.

    I got your point.  But you missed mine.  All these things are supposedly (or should be) fanning the flames for a "political revolution", but where is it? Where was it last night? Maybe if Bernie can rack up big wins in places other than very white very liberal bubbbles, then there'd be some credibility to your point and we can actually start to see some movement.  Until then, this is just a fun parlor game.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    actually completely understand the anger. It seems to me that anger and disappointment with Obama is what's driving the young people to support Sanders. So in a way Tonawanda is right because it seems to be complete disillusionment with what Obama promised back in 2008. It's also an instructive lesson as to what people should be promising. I know campaigning on what you can get done is not as exciting but in the long run it leads to a whole lot less disillusionment.

    Parent
    You got it. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    I disagree... (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    I don't think it's anger/disappointment with Obama driving Sanders popularity...it's anger/disappointment with government at large, and how were not being served.  

    You make it sound like, if not for that bastard Obama, the 44 and under set would be content with Clinton and Democratic Party business as usual.  I don't think that's a good read of the situation.

    And I'm tired of comparisons between the Bernie surge to the 2008 Obama surge...I don't think there is much to compare. Obama's appeal was personality based...his charm, charisma, god looks, eloquence, and yes...blackness.  While I think Bernie's appeal is more issue based. Anecdotally, friends of mine who never gave a f*ck about politics and who would roll their eyes when I tried to talk politics are now coming to me asking questions about Bernie Sanders.  People who have never voted in their life.  Obama didn't light their fire, but Sanders has.  

    Parent

    Except Bernie underperformed (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    in Iowa compared to Obama.  Fewer voters.  Didn't convincingly beat Hillary in Iowa.....

    Parent
    Even more amazing... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    that he managed the virtual tie, with low voter turnout and a thin Democratic field.

    Unfathomable just a few short months ago.  

    Parent

    Bingo, kdog (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    A "win" of .03% is hardly a victory for the Wall Street funded candidate.

    But the spin going on here is pretty hilarious.

    Parent

    Okay, but if he were leading (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    a revolution, he would have gotten more supporters to the polls.   No popular revolution is occurring if you can't get people to the polls....

    Parent
    Something is occurring... (none / 0) (#195)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    we're still talking about Bernie Sanders. I say again, this is f#ckin' nuts!

    Sh:t...it took Ross Perot to get the third way revolution rollin'. Maybe we will get lucky;)

    Parent

    I Don't Get This... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    ...what is the argument, don't fall for a campaign on change because it can't happen, but please support the candidate who is going to extend 'the hope' presidency.

    I mean seriously, this slamming of Obama from the people who are cool with an Obama redux, is perplexing.

    I like Obama and while I'd rather bring in someone who wants to make great change, I will not have an issue with extending his presidency.  

    I would also argue that compared to 2008 and where we were at, a lot of hope and change occurred.  Yeah we aren't hugging and singing kumbaya with republicans, but Obama delivered on many facets, and I think this notion that 'hope and change' are bad it politics is pretty sad.

    Had people not voted for hope and change in 2008 we might have had President McCain along with his VP.  Voting for hope and change worked well for democrats 8 years ago, please stop acting like it's a bad thing used to slam fellow democrats.

    Parent

    C'mon man that was a slogan (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    voted for hope and change in 2008

    Coupled with the desire for many to elect the first black prez for various reasons.

    Why did people think Obama was going to be some radical?  To this day, it makes no sense to me given there was no indication he'd be one.

    Beyond that, hope and change was about us coming together as a nation, not about starting a "revolution."

    Parent

    And That is a Bad Thing ? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    I mean seriously, will someone just say it instead of implying it.

    Hope and change are not realistic goals ?

    How the politics of personas changes people, but me personally, I could not disagree more, change cannot be made by people who don't think it's possible, who have lost hope.

    Parent

    No they're not (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    because they're not actual goals.

    Hope for what?
    What type of change?

    What if my hopes are different from yours?
    What if I don't like your change?
    Who's change goes first?

    Goals are things you can clearly define, put a plan in place for, and have the means to achieve.


    Parent

    Here, If You Don't Know... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    ...what Sanders is campaigning on.  There are goals and acting like there are not is being disingenuous, which pretty much describes that entire comment.

    Parent
    Not beleiving a particular candidate (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    can deliver the changes he wants does not mean I don't want or hope for change.

    I think people are really setting up this false choice between hopeless desolation and 'feeling the Bern'.

    Parent

    True... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    as well as a false choice of efficient incremental and total disaster.

    There is sound logic behind supporting both candidates. Who's right? Who the f:ck knows...

    Dave Mason Ruff....Dave Mason.

    Parent

    Since My Comment Wasn't... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    ... actually directed at you.  Not trying to be a D, but you did not claim that hope and change was a pipe dream.  

    My comments were related other commenters who are now acting like hope and change is something to use against people who support Sanders.

    Parent

    I know it wasn't directed at me (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    Just a general comment on the theme that has gone through many of these threads.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    Became a screen onto which everyone, well, lots of people projected what they wanted to see.  Bernie is doing the very same thing.

    Parent
    Good lord, its basically a tie (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:33:48 AM EST
    Move on. Plenty of other states left to feel the Bern.

    I don't understand... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    what any Bernie supporter could possibly be upset about...I'm ecstatic about Bernie's strong showing.  Beyond thrilled...and not bullsh&t campaign staffer thrilled, genuine thrilled.

    Jesus H. Christ a Socialist in the tradition of Eugene Debs just basically tied a Democratic Party presidential caucus.  This is f*ckin' crazy!  

    Parent

    it doesn't matter which (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    network you watch they all have pundits and spinmeister mixed in with numbers crunchers and reporters

    Sean Penn was right -- no one licenses these people. Anyone can be one.

    I Think We're all Pundits on this Bus (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    - apocryphal, attributed to Firesign Theatre.

    Parent
    What if it is Rubio (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    After all...  That's a frightening thought.

    I hate election season.

    For all those who think (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Voters under 40 don't matter:

    "Without Youth Vote, Obama Would Have Lost Election

    Experts say Romney could have won the election with the youth vote going his way."

    Link

    I hope that Hillary's campaign isn't as dismissive as some of the comments here.

    Worry not (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    . . . as I attended a recent Clinton rally at a campus, and she is very attentive to young voters and their issues.  (And their turnout for her was extraordinary, an overflow crowd that required several extra rooms -- and she made sure to come to each of the extra rooms to listen and talk with them, too.)  

    Or:  See her campaign site for her platform.  

    No need to rely on hope, when the facts are easily found.

    Parent

    That stuff (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    Doesn't make headlines -young people who support Clinton.

    And no one is "dismissing" young people, but not sure why they seem to be the big focus all.the.time, unless because it helps fit a certain narrative.

    I'm 47 years old.  I have student loan debt up the wazoo, and am probably within 5 or 10 years of having to be helping care for my mother.  I will be paying my loans with Social Security someday. But nothing Bernie Sanders is talking about is going to help me

    Parent

    there are certainly commenters here (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    saying they "just don't care".  IMO, that's  dismissive.

    Young people aren't supporting Clinton though, the polls show that they aren't.  Anecdotes about a few young people in a room don't change the numbers.  I'm technically a "young person" who supports Clinton, and even I can see that.

    I also find it mildly ironic that the "young people" get scolded for being selfish, voting for "free stuff" - when the flip side is you don't support that because it's not in your own personal best interest.

    The fact is that there are millions of people who will be helped by the stuff Sanders is talking about, and those are people who need a leg up as badly as anyone.

    And if the economy improves because people younger than you finally start having money to spend, you will benefit too.

    Parent

    They're a focus because their votes matter. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:33:32 PM EST
       Eighty-four percent of those under 30 supported Sanders, as did 60 percent of those between 30 and 44. And it was not just young men who turned out for Sanders. Eighty-six percent of women under 30 said they supported Sanders, and he won the support of women between the ages of 30 and 44 by 53 percent to 42 percent.

        Overall, Clinton did well among women caucus attenders with an 11-point margin over Sanders, as she drew strong support among women over 45 who were a majority of the women who came out to the Democratic caucuses.

     Link

    Clinton has to be concerned about two other demographic results. Losing 84% of voters under 30 is enough of a problem that it undercuts the racial demographic argument. A slim 11-point lead with women is also worrisome, especially because she's losing badly among women younger than forty-five. All of these numbers should improve in a more diverse electorate, but let's be clear about how bad these numbers are for her.

    Perhaps the most problematic factor in these demographics is that they bolster, strongly, Sanders' electability argument. And it's not just spin. My 23 year old stepson, who isn't very political, just called to tell me, "It's unbelievable! My friends have never talked about voting before. Never discussed it. And they're all saying that they can't wait to vote for Sanders. Hillary offers them nothing to get excited about and, if she's the nominee, there's no way they'll turn out for her."

    I know better than to put a lot of stock in that type of anecdotal evidence, but the 84% number certainly backs it up.

    Link

    What's Clinton offering you?  Because other than Clinton taking a more incremental approach, don't they have very similar ideas and views?

    Here is a partial list of the policies that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders largely agree on: The country should have paid family leave; the minimum wage should be substantially increased; college students shouldn't have to take on so much debt; parents need more affordable, quality child care and preschool options; Wall Street needs further reforms; health care should be universal; the wealthy should pay substantially more in taxes. Many of these are new policies even for Democratic presidential candidates. Despite using the socialist label, Mr. Sanders sounds a lot like many prominent Democrats. Mrs. Clinton is a tried and true liberal.

    So, seriously - what is Clinton offering you that Sanders isn't?

    And if he's got nothing to offer you, why would you vote for him if he's the nominee?

    Parent

    She's offering me (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    Experience, you know, to understand a tally how to get things done.

    She's offering me a large giant brain that has ideas about more than just one or two issues, and us attuned to the many struggles we face.

    She's offering me proven leadership, because, as much as many liberals would like to ignore foreign policy, it's actually the main job of the president.

    She's offering me someone who does more than pay lip service to girls' and women's issues.

    She's offering me someone who probably has a better understanding of the health care system and all the moving parts than anybody on earth.

    And yes, the icing on the cake would be to see a woman in the Oval Office - something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Just the perspective  of a female leader alone would be amazing. It would finally be nice to catch up to countries like Israel, Pakistan, Argentina, Iceland, Bolivia, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Ireland, Burundi, Guyana, Finland, Indonesia,  Liberia, India, Lithuania. Brazil, Kosovo, South Korea, Chile, Mauritius, Tawain, and the UK who all have had female leaders.

    Parent

    You just said Sanders is offering a lot of the (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    same things Clinton is. Plus stopping the GOP from winning. Why the heck would I NOT vote for him if he is the nominee?

    Parent
    Obamacare Conveniently Left Out ? (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    No offense, but what is this person going to do for me is what I expect to read from republican backers, "What can they do for me !".

    You have spent years demonizing ACA and now that's not worthy of addressing in your future financial worries.

    Couple of notes, others wouldn't have student debt under Bernie, his health care plan would most certainly benefit you(even if you forgot to mention it), and the numbers in Iowa don't match your notions of who young people are supporting.

    But that's right, he can't do it, and since HRC isn't interested, we will have many replicas of the very position you find yourself in, I wonder if they are going to act like nothing can be done as well...  

    Let's hope not, sorry hope is bad now.

    Parent

    Why do you assume... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    They are mutually exclusive ideas?

    Can't I support someone because some of their ideas will benefit me personally AND because other ideas will help others?  Answer:  yes, I can.  It's a sign of intelligence to be able to hold more than one thought at a time.

    Not to mention that it isn't just about me -it's about millions of people in my situation.  Here's a thought - how about someone, oh, I don't know, who's in the Senate - push for making student loan interest fully deductible, like it was previous to 1986?  How about pushing for things like deductibility of rent payments?

    The ACA is what it is.  It has done some good and hurt others.  That's why we need to improve it - not blow it up. (And let's get real here.  That's exactly what Sanders plan would do.  By definition, single payer would mean getting rid of everything, including Medicare and Medicaid, and starting completely over, since currently Medicare actually has hundreds of loopholes and oh yes, deductibles. And it isn't that great of coverage unless you buy other plans or have plans as part of your retirement plan to get near full coverage.)  

    Those are things that would help LOTS of people.

    And by the way, I WILL support Bernie if he's the nomination ee. In case that isn't clear.  I will do it bracing for a President Cruz or Rubio, though.

    Parent

    Just don't mess with my (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    Medicare or Social Security.  I graduated from college in 1960 and had no debt.  Maybe Oregon was different then, but nobody I knew had college debt.  Naturally it was cheaper back then, but my family didn't have much money, so I guess education was less expensive, I truly don't remember.

    Parent
    Given Clinton's commitment (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    to rebuilding the Democratic Party for the long haul, to say nothing of her understanding of how presidential politics works, I very much doubt that she is at all dismissive of the youth vote.

    Neither candidate is in a position to ignore or diss any voting demographic.

    Important to victory in November, for either Clinton or Sanders, will be the ability and willingness of the losing candidate to do what Clinton did so well, so graciously, in 2008- bring supporters on the losing side back to the Democratic fold and enthusiastic about the candidate.

    Yes, yes, yes PUMAs, no need to rehash that. Not every supporter will be willing to put aside the primary, but if the losing candidate is committed to the win in November, she/he can swing a lot of votes for the eventual nominee

    Parent

    Even More Important... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    ... we need not lose a critical block of voters for beyond this election because the establishment doesn't like their current choice of candidates.

    Parent
    The truth (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    is all voters matter. No voting group is more important than any other one. You can name a group and if they don't show up for the candidate the candidate is gonna lose.

    Parent
    Seriously CST (none / 0) (#137)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    you and Scott are taking my comment way too far.  Maybe I was unclear, if yes, my bad.  

    I'm merely saying every four years all we hear about is the youth vote - as tho their opinions are golden and sacrosanct.  That if we don't follow along w/the boundless idealism something is wrong.  It bothers me, that is all.  There are a host of constituencies that have issues that need to be addressed - not just the "youth."

    Your comment above regarding Obama would've lost if he didn't get the youth vote could be made for any demographic that voted for Obama.


    Parent

    "demographics" don't vote. People vote. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    the difference being (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    Hillary already has those other demographics in the bag.

    FWIW, I feel like I'm already fighting for the general election, and you're still fighting for the primary.  Bernie didn't win Iowa convincingly, he's more or less toast.  It's time to pivot, and this is Hillary's glaring weakness.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#141)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    I think we need to be honest w/the constituency you refer to.

    Pandering will lead to disillusionment later, which will lead to the same thing again in four years or worse, a loss in November.

    Parent

    I'm wondering (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    How many Obama 2008 supporters who are now disappointed in what he couldn't achieve, are now supporting Bernie Sanders because they think he will achieve the liberal nirvana....

    Parent
    I think most Obama supporters (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:10:35 PM EST
     are very happy with Obama.

    Parent
    Many liberal supporters (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    Are disappointed by what they thought he could not achieve.

    Parent
    Name One... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    .. from TL, which is surely a big enough pool to pick from.

    I was unhappy with Obama in 2012, but not in 2016, and I am not alone.


    Parent

    OTOH (3.33 / 3) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    Many who were never supporters have never missed a chance in 8 years to slick in the shiv.

    Parent
    Think your veering out of your specialty (none / 0) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    with your punditry, as I've never found you to be all that liberal or an Obama supporter.

    Parent
    we don't have to guess (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    Now. (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    But on certain issues - TPP, lack of public option, etc, not so much.

    And for much of his presidency, his job approval - not so great.

    But thanks for playing.

    Parent

    For Playing What ? (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    The idiot game.

    Yeah, as you mentioned:

    It's a sign of intelligence to be able to hold more than one thought at a time.

    So yes, I can personally not like the drone program, Obama's early love fest with republicans, TPP, Gitmo and many other things and still approve of the job he is doing.

    I am finding your view points especially bothersome in that last election you all but towed the Romney line and now you are acting like you are a democrat so thoroughly ensconced that you can openly speak for and make assumptions about people who have been lifelong democrats.  And the fact that you have been wrong nearly 100% of the time, it's becoming offensive, bordering on Jim like assumptions and conjuring the same nonsensical straw-men arguments.

    The fact is you don't a clue what liberals want.  If you can't make the argument without making inaccurate presumptions about liberals, maybe the argument needs refining.

    Parent

    You JUST said (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:50:00 PM EST

    How many Obama 2008 supporters who are now disappointed

    as CST pointed out, we do not have to guess,   The RCP average is less than 10%

    Parent

    yes now (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    As in - when the primaries are happening.  When all his supposedly disillusioned voters are supporting Bernie.  Or something.

    So say 15-20% of the party isn't happy with Obama.  Assuming 100% of them are Bernie supporters (I certainly wouldn't, I can think of one Hillary supporter on this particular blog who probably falls in that group) - that still doesn't explain the majority of his support.

    Parent

    Are You Trying to Blend... (none / 0) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    ... because if memory serves right you are a republican.

    Parent
    Let's (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    have some more primaries and get some more things to dissect before we start talking about some of this IMO.

    So far we have had a caucus not even a primary in the 3rd most white and liberal state in the primary. In a month we will have more information. I'm willing to bet not all white young people are as liberal as the ones in Iowa.

    Parent

    It"s official (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    She won

    She is awarded (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    700.59 state delegate equivalents.

    Sanders receives 696.82.

    O'Malley receives 7.61

    Parent

    oh well (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:29:05 AM EST
    no one in the main stream media will actually admit how white iowa is and how much Sanders doesn't like Obama.

    it is what it is.

    Blatantly racist comment (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    from you, and unsurprisingly so.

    Parent
    It's a demographic fact (1.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    Its not racist to point out facts.

    Your reply is what I'm talking about below, the escalation and acrimony, and yeah on twitter its much worse, thanks for the reply.

    Yes. I do find it frustrating that Bernie has, when preaching to his choir, aligned himself with Obamas fiercest critics, but when talking to main stream media he'll say nice things about Obama.  Which is it Bernie?   I will ask that question if the media won't.

    Parent

    No, actually, your comment (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    was blatantly racist. You're a troll.

    Parent
    Here's a website (none / 0) (#183)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    You might want to avoid....

    Link

    Parent

    I wouldn't click on any link you post (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    You made a racist comment. Either own it or don't. But don't waste my time.

    Parent
    Hey I know (2.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:46:21 PM EST
    Lets max out the 200 comment limit.

    Guess what they asked Bernie about Obama that's great, he moderates his critique on tv, what they should do is play a clip from Cornel West attacking Obama and ask Bernie to comment on it.

    That would make people accountable I think.

    Parent

    Considering that you are the new commenter (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    who only started posting comments on this blog on January 14--a mere three weeks ago--and have done more blogclogging and maxing out of comments at 200 than anyone in recent memory, I'd say take a look in the mirror.

    And I'm, frankly, not interested in your excuses for offensive comments after the fact.

    Parent

    Do you need the last word? (2.33 / 3) (#191)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    Hey I know let's do this...

    Instead of you just calling the comment racist and then repeating it over and over again, can you calmly explain to me how pointing out the demographic realities of Iowa is racist?

    Parent

    Escalating outrage and acrimony (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    The funny thing is Bernie won't end wars ... Whatever Obama's foreign policy is, it's been designed by safe sane military thinkers like Gen. Wesley Clark among others and Bernie will adopt those policies.

    Domestically he will have to deal with congress.  He will either be Carter or results will be same no matter who wins primary.

    But damn the tension now online is palpable, the hard drives and processors of the dem electorate are literally shaking with rage, the crowd swells the crowd pulsates the media injects the crowd with rhetorical steroids, the crowd fixates and boils Maddow arches her eyebrows and pokes the crowd with a smile tweety praises trump he's remarkable Hayes interjects some snark ....

    Cut to a cialis commercial.

    And the crowd ... The whipped up frenzy.  I know what enthusiasm looks like, that's not enthusiasm, it's a religious zealotry.  It's the kind of thing Maher makes fun of in the movie "Religulous."

    What I'm going to suggest here is that there is a wonderful book by Don DeLillo called "Mao II" ....  About this book DeLillo said...

    ...the arch individualist and the mass mind, from the mind of the terrorist to the mind of the mass organization. In both cases, it's the death of the individual that has to be accomplished before their aims can be realized."

    The Internet is a crowd.  This is going to get so much worse before it even comes close to getting better.

    Because.  Revolution.

    Will there be guillotines at the Dem convention?  Who's ruling that out?  All for what?

    This comment seems dire (none / 0) (#182)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    So put it this way.... Even Clinton herself I will observe is starting to talk in ways that give me a frenzied out of control vibe.

    She gave an interview to tweety a few weeks ago, now today, compare contrast.... look at the escalated tone.

    Maybe it's just me, oh well.


    Parent

    Larry O'Donnall (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:27:28 AM EST
    interrupted Rachel Maddow who was trying to explain how Hillary won all three coin flips to award delegates and how 90 precinct did not have chairs who the Democratic party was able to contact so far and so the Democratic party has asked both Hillary and Bernie to help find the chairs.

    O'Donnall said years ago he had acted as a poll watcher in an East Block country and what happened tonight would not pass muster if it had happened when he was a poll watcher.

    Maddow must have missed (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    the video of the Sanders camp winning at least one coin toss, too.  And she must have missed the Des Moines Register's good reporting on this. . . .  

    Parent
    Ugh, Maddow (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    She is the worst.

    Parent
    Maddow? The worst? Puh-leese (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Far from it, regardless of what you were thinking came in the blank that begins "worst of [what?]."

    Parent
    She is terrible (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    And a large reason I stopped watching MSNBC altogether.

    Parent
    Oh, c'mon, jb! (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    That's such an all encompassing derogatory generalization as to be laughable. You ran the gamut of "Ugh!" to "She's terrible," without ever saying exactly why you think Rachel Maddow's so awful and further, terrible compared to whom -- Wolf Blitzer? Megyn Kelly?

    If you don't care for Maddow for whatever reason, then so be it. And that's fine. Maybe you don't care for her politics, or her voice grates on you like someone rubbing a balloon continuously with their hands, or she reminds you of some woman who misread your signals and made a pass at you. All those are legitimate reasons. All you had to say is that you just don't care for her.

    But don't simply dismiss Peter's opinion with a curt "she's terrible," as though you consider Maddow to somehow be the second coming of Ted Baxter and yours is the only opinion here that truly matters.

    Because while Ms. Maddow quite obviously irritates you, that hardly renders her as some incompetent and inconsequential airhead. Certainly when compared to so many of her contemporaries and counterparts on the cable news networks, she's one of the smartest and hardest working people in TV journalism today.

    Aloha.  

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    You don't want me to "dismiss Peter's opinion" (which I didn't do, by the way), but yet you feel free to dismiss MY opinion with a diatribe. Selective hypocrisy.

    Rachel routinely distorts facts (for which she has been called out on many times), splices video to craftily shade the whole truth, uses childish techniques (ooh, let's clap our hands!) and junior high humor (sorry, can't take anyone seriously with a Ph.D who purports to be "serious" who kept using "teabagger" in "news" segments), etc.

    In other words, she's pretty much like every other pundit hack on cable news.

    Which, is why I said, I stopped watching MSNBC and their constant nonsense.

    Parent

    Yours is merely an unsupported opinion. (3.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    Your personal distaste for Rachel Maddow appears to be based more on her style, rather than the substance of her work. That doesn't render her a lousy or dishonest journalist. While she obviously holds some rather strong opinions herself -- not all of which I share -- and isn't at all shy about offering them, as a rule she doesn't misstate supporting facts or documentation, and she tends to not take others' statements out of context.

    Whenever Maddow does err by misstating a fact or misquoting someone else's statement, she admits as much on the air to her audience, corrects it for the record, and apologizes if need be. Personally, while I certainly don't always agree with her analysis, I generally find her to be extraordinarily well-informed and well-versed in her subject matter. And if she doesn't know something, she's not afraid to say so forthrightly and consult with someone who perhaps does.

    Further, given your own penchant here for parroting the Beltway's conventional wisdom, offering false equivalencies and regularly referencing Politico, aka "Tiger Beat on the Potomac," you're hardly in any position to define for Peter or anyone else what constitutes good journalism and what doesn't.

    Rachel Maddow doesn't "craftily shade the whole truth." Rather, she's merely expressing a particular point of view which you don't like. And now, you're trying to spin your own personal opinion of her in an attempt to seize some sort of moral high ground here, though only the gods themselves know why.

    Just because you or I happen to disagree with someone, or don't care for the particular direction a news story may be headed, it shouldn't therefore follow that ours is the default position for fact and truth, and / or that we're necessarily right and they're more than likely wrong. Our personal opinions are exactly that -- our own opinions.

    Of course, that's strictly MY opinion.

    Parent

    I have plenty of problems (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    With Ms Maddow.   That said, she is head and shoulders above any other talking head I can think of.  I once liked Chris Hayes   This election season I never watch his show without a strong cocktail

    Parent
    I have a problem with all talking heads (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    from Maddow to O'Reilly. But I save money with that problem because I don't pay for any cable news stations, so from my perspective I've pretty much  muzzled all the talking heads.

    Parent
    Maddow is pro Bernie (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    Not a fan of Hillary....

    Parent
    A poll watcher is watching an election (none / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:36:49 AM EST
    There is no muster to pass -- no laws by which to abide -- in a non-election.  

    This is a non-election, because it is a caucus.  

    Parties run caucuses, as they wish. If O'Donnell wanted Iowa to run an election, muster and all, he ought to have done something about it when he ran the party.

    Parent

    O'Donnell's point was (none / 0) (#3)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    the Democratic Party looked bad with the way they ran the caucus.  Flipping coins to determine six of the delegates with Hillary winning all six strains credibility.  Having 90 precincts unreported with the race as close as it turns out also makes one wonder.

    I understand the political parties have ultimate control on how they choose their candidate and have no problem with the establishment seeming to be putting a finger on the scale in favor of Hillary.

    But there is still a bad taste in lots of folks mouth.

    Parent

    Sure, the Iowa process is awful (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:56:05 AM EST
    but seriously, insinuating that this is because of bias for Hillary Rodham Clinton really leaves a bad taste about the Bernie Sanders sorts.  It only makes this one wonder how you're going to handle anything after New Hampshire.

    It's down to a dozen precincts, where volunteers probably had a problem with the app.  And you can look at the Iowa state party's website and map to see that the precincts not reporting include as many in the Sanders areas as in the Clinton areas.

    Or, you can continue to ignore that information, posted by the Iowa party for you, and "wonder."

    Parent

    Cable news (none / 0) (#6)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:11:23 AM EST
    is reporting 90 precincts were not staffed by the Iowa Democratic Party and Sanders and Clinton were asked to help with the counting in those 90 precincts.

    Rachel asked what happens if Sanders' and Clintons' people report different results.

    It seems obvious there will be bad feelings no matter what happens.  Saying this  

    really leaves a bad taste about the Bernie Sanders sorts

    misses the point that if Clinton has any chance of winning the general she needs those Bernie Sanders sorts.  Of course the same goes for Bernie.

    But what ever happens there will be egg on several people's faces.

    Parent

    I find more objective reporting on this (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:25:26 AM EST
    by not relying on MSNBC.  Its bias has been clear.

    And CNN is confused, because Wolfie and other still do not understand the Iowa caucus, or life in the "flyover country" or . . . whichever, I always look to the local newspaper, if it's a good one -- and the Des Moines Register is.  See its report on this.

    Parent

    One network is reporting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:22:15 AM EST
    that the Sanders camp is reporting that.

    And the line about the "bad taste" was your line.  It looks different to you now when it's back at you?

    Parent

    I don't think Lawrence (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:59:33 AM EST
    O'Donnell is an authority on anything. He's a pundit with a cable show.

    Parent
    and consistently (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 02:14:08 AM EST
    anti-clinton.

    Parent
    Don't listen to Lawrence O'Donnell ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:14:19 AM EST
    ... or any other pundit on this issue. Having watched the coverage on MSNBC tonight, it was pretty apparent to me that none of them have a friggin' clue how the caucus system actually works. And neither does the Sanders campaign hierarchy, apparently.

    Hawaii is a presidential caucus state, and I've chaired four of them in my old district on Oahu, where I served as district chair and then regional chair before resigning my position when we moved to Hilo last June. A district / precinct caucus cannot open without the chair being present to first formally convene the meeting and explain the process to attendees, and then remaining in place to adjourn that meeting, once the votes are counted and the results are tallied and ratified by the precinct / district officers.

    So the Sanders campaign's contention that there was nobody present from the Iowa Democratic Party at 90 precinct caucus meetings is likely baseless, because a precinct / district chair is a party official.

    For whatever reason, there are 90 precincts that apparently didn't report their results in a timely manner. While that error is on the precinct chair, it is a serious leap to thus conclude that there was fraud taking place, because both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns had an observer on site at each of them.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "or any other pundit" (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    uh, whatever you say, Donald.

    Parent
    ... I am quite familiar with the process, having actually chaired presidential caucus meetings at the district level, including the bitterly contested caucuses in 2008 when our district meeting was swamped by over 2,000 attendees, to take part in a process which historically draws about 300. (For the record, our state has 51 districts, and all reported similar record turnouts that year.)

    Have you ever done the same? ragebot obviously hasn't, given that he's parroting the TV punditry of people like Lawrence O'Donnell, who clearly doesn't know his own a$$ from his elbow regarding the caucus process.

    As Towanda said, people can either put forth the personal effort to inform themselves about how that process works, or they can decline to do so and then "wonder" about the utter mystery of it all, while effectively chasing their own tails with baseless allegations about what actually happened.

    Your choice.

    Parent

    You've said all that before. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:10:45 PM EST
    Sounds like (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:21:08 AM EST
    Debbie WS is still at it.

    Parent
    DWS does not control the Iowa Democratic (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    Party. This has nothing to do with the DNC and quite a bit to do with the way the state parties run things in Iowa.

    I can lay the blame for many things at the feet of Wasserman Schulz, but not the Iowa caucuses.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:38:36 AM EST
    They used the famous Ralph Kramden/Ed Norton coin toss strategy

    :)

    Parent

    Not like you think (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:21:15 AM EST
    Link

    You could measure it in terms of the results: with 98 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton had an estimated 689 state convention delegates to Sanders's 686 -- giving them an even 21 national convention delegates apiece.

    Or you could look at it this way: on a precinct-by-precinct basis, Democratic voters were so evenly split between Sanders and Clinton that at least four different caucuses were decided by coin toss.

    This doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucuses by a coin toss

    Not every coin flip went to Clinton. A fourth caucus, documented in [this YouTube video], showed a coin flip won by Sanders:

    But because the caucus was so close, and because feelings in the Democratic primary are running so high, some people have interpreted reports to mean that Hillary Clinton's very slight lead over Bernie Sanders in the caucuses is the result of a coin toss. That's not quite accurate, because of the complicated way that Democratic primaries work.

    SNIP

    The fact that so many caucuses came down to coin tosses isn't necessarily an indication that the entire race could have gone one way or the other if not for a bit of luck -- although that's certainly possible.


    Parent
    Too Much?..CNN? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:18:15 AM EST
    I'm a Hillary girl, but get honest J, your character needs it. I'm starting to feel a little Bern around my Brazilian :)

    So, I thought Hillary needed a 5+... (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:23:11 AM EST
    % win tonight. She didn't get it.

    Bernie didn't get his game-changing win either. SC and NV are the next narrative changers. NH means nothing.

    And you thought she needed a 5+-pt. win ,,, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:24:39 AM EST
    ... why, exactly? Sanders gave her one helluva race, but she won. And that's all that matters.

    Parent
    It's hard to be upset (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:33:17 AM EST
    About much when the party has two great candidates.

    Parent
    You can say that again... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:35:35 AM EST
    It's hard to be upset (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:39:46 AM EST
    About much when the party has two great candidates.

    Parent
    To knock him out for all intents and purposes. (none / 0) (#194)
    by magster on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    It would have been a lot better for him if he had barely won instead of barely lost, but he still did well enough to legitimately claim he has a shot when he campaigns after NH.

    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    if IA will have any effect on the NH numbers.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:49:35 AM EST
    flipping coins, no secret ballot..

    i hope fight the establishment supporters will weigh in on the hysteria of the iowa caucus oh my god it's a freak show.

    on both sides.  yes on both sides.

    thanks Iowa.

    Sanders wants raw vote count released (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:40:39 AM EST
    Guardian: Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucus

    Sanders threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precint-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

    "I honestly don't know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest," he said.

    "I have no idea, did we win the popular vote? I don't know, but as much information as possible should be made available."

    - Dan Roberts, The Guardian

    Sanders didn't do his homework (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    . . .you mean, or Sanders knows better but is manufacturing a victimization meme.

    Iowa Dems do not report popular vote.  Not the way their (@%%@%%^!!) caucus works.

    The percentages reported -- 49.9 to 49.6 now, with only one precinct report out -- are of state delegates won.  This is not new.  This is made quite clear by Iowa Dems, in Iowa media, etc.

    (And this isn't necessarily the tally of delegates for the Dem nominating convention, either, as this is delegates to the state convention, where more Iowa craziness can ensue.)

    If Sanders does not know this, he is calling for losing more support in Iowa, by showing that he does not care to learn how politics, it is done by Dems there -- and that can have impact at the next step. So, it is unwise.

    If Sanders does know this, he also may lose support for essentially accusing the Iowa Dems of nefariousness -- and positioning himself as victimized.  So, it also is unwise.

    But then, we have seen his staffers' lack of wisdom several times, and it just makes his campaign look to be not ready for prime time.

    Parent

    The last precinct is in -- for Sanders (none / 0) (#67)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    So much for the nonsense.

    The volunteer who stepped up to chair the caucus in that Des Moines precinct called the state party with the tally too late, last night; the state staffers had gone home.  

    It's Iowa.  Gotta get up early in the morning to shovel the snow. Deal with it, national networks:  You're not Iowa's monkeys; you're not Iowa's circus.

    Parent

    The 'popular vote' is irrelevant (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:48:45 AM EST
    What does he hope to accomplish?  Not great to get bogged down in Iowa caucus procedural stuff - as tempting as that is, as eff'd up as it is.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:51:47 AM EST
    I'm not sure how that kind of thing helps him at all. However I think he thinks maybe he can do some spin if he won the popular vote in Iowa. He would be spending his time better if he just talked about how messed up the IA caucus system is.

    Parent
    He'd do better to look forward to New Hampshire (none / 0) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:10:48 AM EST
    His campaign complaining about Iowa just makes them sound like Seattle fans after last year's Superbowl. "We really won, if you don't count the interception. We want a do over, until the referees report the game in our favor."

    Parent
    I'd (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    agree with that.

    Parent
    He wants to show that the caucus was rigged (none / 0) (#32)
    by Farmboy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:14:21 AM EST
    And the fact that he received fewer county delegates is proof of the "establishment" having it in for him. QED

    Parent
    After (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    all the shenanigans by Debbie Wasserman Schutz, giving us three debates on the graveyard shift, Sanders has a right to be skeptical.

    In fact, he has a duty to his workers and contributors to pursue an investigation of any suspected fraud.

    What is the problem?

    Either there was, or there wasn't, and an investigation will tell.

    The unrelenting dumping on Sanders by progressives is something I have yet to comprehend.

    All I can think of is, thanks to Bill Clinton, the Democratic party became one that embraced the death penalty, that kept the embers of the first Gulf war burning paving the way for Bush 2, began to cut programs for the needy, and embraced programs that impoverished indigent workers in third-world countries.

    We did have some money to spend in them days, it is true.

    But, add three wars to the mix... and

    Parent

    Well if he wants to expend his energy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    on this instead of in S. Carolina and Florida, that is his choice. I would think that sticking it to DW-S in her own state would be the best thing he could do.

    Parent
    We both know Clinton will win Florida handily (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    I was told a revolution was coming (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    Is it not stopping here?

    Parent
    Frankly, (none / 0) (#197)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:36:10 PM EST
    I don't see any revolution coming at all.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:46:49 AM EST
    understand how you can "recreate" voting.

    That's not what it is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:10:27 AM EST
    but the way that it was told to media by Sanders' staff, first to the media after calls to the candidates by the state party --  whose site and county-by-county map was very useful last night to me, so I have to wonder if Sanders' staff wasn't watching it with me?  So also was the Des Moines Register site.  

    National media were not good on this; CNN didn't do it's homework (or staff did but Blitzer wasn't listening -- and its pundits were worse), MSNBC is so biased as to manufacture hysteria (or, again, it is the result of staff incompetence), etc.  Look to the local media to explain localisms

    Parent

    Map is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:53:38 AM EST
    interesting in that Hillary did quite well with rural voters.

    By my count (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:05:41 AM EST
    Hillary won the county by county vote 59-37 with 3 ties. She also won the delegate battle last night 23-21. Include her 6 committed superdelegates from Iowa and she is now leading 29-21 with 2 still uncommitted (some sites have Hillary leading 28-21). While Sanders may have drawn crowds, Clinton had the ground game.

    Two months ago I was pooh-poohed for saying Sanders would win "2 maybe 3 states". After last night, the maybe is gone and the total drops to 2. When the revolution narrative comes to a close, the final state tally will be Clinton 48 and Sanders 2.

    Parent

    Thanks for reminding us of this (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    We have to hear about what terrible trouble Hillary is in until Feb 20-23 when she starts winning.  Going to be a long February.

    Parent
    Well, it is a leap year... (none / 0) (#202)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 07:07:20 PM EST
    Of course, "committed" super-d's (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    as well we know from 2008, can flipflop on their commitments.  But it was sweet to see John Lewis with the Clintons in Iowa last night, looking so happy to not have that pressure this time.

    And as I understand it (note caveat), the other delegates are to the state convention, where there still can be some dealing before finalizing the delegation to the national nominating convention aka the national Dem convention.  

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:15:09 AM EST
    I'm not sure if Sanders won't win a caucus somewhere like in Idaho.

    Parent
    ... and he'll surely win his home state primary in Vermont on "Super Tuesday." He will also likely be quite competitive in Minnesota, Colorado and here in Hawaii, all of which are caucus states. But yeah, barring some incredible collapse by Hillary Clinton, it's really hard to see how he wins any more than a handful of states at most.

    Parent
    lol. they're generally more conservative. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 07:18:30 AM EST
    Of course (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 07:21:26 AM EST
    but supposedly that was part of Bernie's appeal.

    Parent
    Sanders should (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    have just done what Gore did in 2000.
    Just roll over.

    this is the beginning of the process (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    not the end.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    MSNBC is declaring Bernie (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    The overwhelming winner.  What a surprise.   In a looooooong segment about "all the irregularities" this made me laugh-

    Imagine Micas best conspiratorial tone-

    "There were coin tosses at five different precincts and that in all five instances Clinton won the coin toss. .Hmmmmm?!

    I can't watch MSNBC anymore (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    between Joe in the AM spinning for Bernie, anchors throughout the day spinning everything Hillary does into some plot to steal the world and evening coverage saying the same it's no wonder we have party splits the way we do.

    What's worse are complicit aides who gin up controversies when politically expedient.  Case in point - nonsense about irregularities and actual vote counts.  The losing side always talks about irregularities and actual vote counts - especially this last - as if it matters.  I can only imagine the difference if Bernie had led this AM.  "Ding dong the witch is dead....."

    As the race plays out and a side gets more desperate I can only imagine the type of crap that we will start to see.

    Parent

    Very true (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    Going to be the longest February ever

    Parent
    I have to say (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    though some of these people are doing Bernie no favors making him their favorite victim.

    Parent
    the thing is (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    Bernie doesn't need favors.  He's not going to be the nominee, he's going to go back to VT and be a senator.

    Hillary on the other hand needs these people in the general election.  It's just that simple.

    Parent

    Okay but (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    I'm talking about the media. The media that is purporting to "help" him is actually hurting him with their "Bernie is a victim" narrative.

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    they can't hurt Bernie, because Bernie has nothing to lose.  They are hurting Hillary with Bernie supporters though.  That's the real problem.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    it's the media. Anything to take Hillary out. Even if that would include using Bernie.

    Parent
    This isn't a (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:04:06 AM EST
    guessing game.

    Either he won, or he didn't win, or it was a tie.

    The rest is spin, and I'm sick of it.

    Parent

    Very true (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    Once the results are in, punditry is fishwrapper material.

    Parent
    She's such a tool (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:06:58 AM EST
    How does (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    shopping conspiracy theories help Bernie in the least?

    Parent
    Just How Many Delagates Did Each Candidate Win? (none / 0) (#55)
    by RickyJim on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    This map shows Clinton 28 to Sanders 21.  When Superdelagates are counted its Clinton has 384 to Sanders 29.

    I fail to see in any view why anybody thinks Sanders has a chance.

    Iowa superdelegates are like 7-8 delegates (none / 0) (#196)
    by magster on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:29:52 PM EST
    And I heard Clinton won 22-21. Something like that.

    Parent
    A video you Bernie fans (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    will find interesting.

    And I want both to lose so don't start screaming at me.

    And now Trump us claiming fraud (none / 0) (#204)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:26 AM EST