Earlier today, the brilliant statisticians at FiveThirtyEight.com, looking at the results of 20 recent polls, reaffirmed their prediction that Hillary Clinton would, with 99% certainty, win the Michigan primary. [Just three days ago, Politico was projecting a 17-point victory for Clinton.] Well, that’s not what happened. Sanders was just declared winner, beating Clinton by 2 points. As for what this means, I’m not quite sure… Does it mark a turning point in the campaign? Does it prove that we’re undergoing a political sea change in this country? Will Sanders be able to carry the momentum into the next big contests? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
As far as the biggest takeaway from today’s primary, it might be that Sanders is finally starting to get traction with black voters. “One thing helping Sanders tonight is a comparatively strong performance with African-American voters,” said FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver. “He’s losing them only 65 percent to 30 percent in Michigan, according to exit polls, which doesn’t sound great but is much better than in other states, where he’s lost them as badly as 91 percent to 6 percent.”
Speaking of Nate Silver, he also had this to say about tonight’s incredible upset.
[Silver explains what he thinks may have happened here.]
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, I think, summed things up best. “If there was any doubt before tonight, there can be no longer,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is a movement, and that movement will not and cannot be stopped. Despite the Democratic National Committee, the big Democratic funders, the New York Times and Washington Post; despite the pollsters and pundits and the Washington insiders and political operatives — despite an establishment that doesn’t want to recognize what has happened to America and why this movement is essential to reclaiming our democracy and economy — Bernie will prevail and the political revolution will grow. Americans are joining up and joining together. Sooner or later – hopefully, sooner rather than later — we will succeed.”
In related news, our friend Steve Neavling is reporting that at least three precincts in Flint ran out of ballots today. Apparently the folks in charge didn’t realize that, when you poison people, they tend to want to vote.
Oh, and here’s the graphic from FiveThirtyEight.com showing the likelihood of a Clinton win in Michigan.
76 Comments
Unbelievable. Beginning today, this is a whole new race.
POLITICO: “And he trounced her among independents, 70 percent of whom voted for Sanders.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/politico-breaking-news-sanders-wins-michigan-220460#ixzz42NSg5PeQ
I know it’s still an uphill battle for Sanders. By winning Michigan, I believe, he only gets ten more delegates than Clinton, which still puts him about 200 behind. I just like that this is a competitive race. That’s a good thing for democracy. It means more people coming out to vote, and more people taking interest in the process. One just hopes that, whoever the Democratic candidate is, we all support that person. I’d hate for this primary to become so heated that we loose sight of what’s really important, which is keeping the Republican candidate out of the White House.
I think, regardless of delegates, the more states he wins outright will change the mood and delegate dynamics at the convention. If it comes in at or near a tie for state wins, I would not be surprised if delegates go up for grabs at the convention.
They are just going through the motions. Hilary has a lock on the super-delegates. Bernie is hanging in there with hopes that she’ll be indicted. Not much chance of Bernie winning even if she’s behind bars. Someone else will be drafted at the convention.
Hopefully it’s the beginning of the end for Nate Silver and blowhard pollsters who are working an antiquated system, and hurting democracy too.
I’ve been trying to figure out the disparity in polling v voting results. We can be cavalier about polling inaccuracies all we want, but this was many polls right before an election being really wrong. Which poses a problem for analysis. Even after the fact. The data on which groups voted for whom is based on exit polls… A friend explained to me: “it’s all down to likely voter models. Polls these days know they have no hope of reaching a representative sample, so they can’t just do simple tabulations. So to make up for this they weight responses according to models of what they believe the typical demographic of a likely voter is. So if they reach a latino 18-25 person that response is multiplied by their estimated chance that a typical latino 18-25 person shows up to vote. What the large error tells us is that the received wisdom of what kind of person is likely to vote was way off, at least in Michigan.”
So we have an educated guess on how many Black voters polled for Sanders, and not a very accurate one probably. (I do know quite a few activists of color in and from Detroit and they were all going Sanders; there is a strong socialist/marxist bent in that group that has held strong for years)
To add to the mix– “Voters with union members in their households — a crucial demographic in Michigan, as well as in upcoming primary states like Ohio and Illinois — split down the middle between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.” (NYTimes analysis)
Times also said Sanders voters said their top issue was economic inequality (no surprise) and the economy/jobs, and healthcare– areas where Hillary has won handily in past states.
The rest of the rust belt is going to be interesting. Amazing to see union voters split from union directive. Or maybe not…
Oh and independent voters went hard for Sanders. Which tells me some were cross over voters trying to take out HRC. But who knows? I definitely know less today than I did yesterday…
“Hillary is going to win Michigan by large margins…. your small world of voters is largely insignificant in this election.” – Jean Henry
Two thoughts:
I just read something saying that in some southern states, Hillary got up to 91 percent of the black vote, which heavily contributed to her sizable victories there … but here in Michigan, black voters split more evenly (something like 3 in 10) – not great, but his best showing so far. Given his tight victory, this seems to have been instrumental.
Bernie’s strong support from independent voters can be taken two ways: 1.) It is fluke, the result of meddling by Republicans, or 2.) It shows that Bernie is able to attract sizable (decisive) numbers of independent voters – making him a much stronger opponent in the general election than Hillary.
Thanks for the reminder Ted. I already conceded that I was wrong– following polls showing a clear 20 point lead for HRC– in the other thread. I was wrong and almost everyone else. The insignificant remark referred to Sanders voters who would not vote for HRC even in the general. We’ll have to see about the accuracy of that one. HRC has a commanding lead in delegate count. Neck and neck races are not mandates for revolution, but, like Mark. I think the MI result is good for the party and for democracy. It keeps Hillary to the left– hopefully not on protectionism. It will get the Dem race a lot more news coverage and Sanders a lot more scrutiny. All good in my book.
You can’t trust people who do math.
Here’s the non-conspiracy take on Bernie’s uptick with African Americans. They are just unfamiliar with him. He has nowhere to go but up as the vast majority of people learn his core message. Hillary Clinton has peaked. We’ve known HRC for twenty five years and it turns out that most of us don’t like her very much.
The real demographic story is Dearborn. He won overwhelmingly with Arab Americans. Process that. An old Jewish man. Clinton’s campaign is surely freaking out.
Bob, you need to do more research before you bash Nate Silver. He’s not really a pollster; he’s a statistician. He’ll take these most recent results and refine his models as he comes to the table with very little bias. It’s his mission to be right, not to push an agenda. We should all be thankful that folks like him have arrived on the scene to expose the truth about the actual crappy pollsters with agendas that you’re complaining about.
Oooo, the Arab American thing is fascinating. They appear to be holding her accountable for the military action in the middle East when she was Secretary of State. They feel that first hand. Unfortunately Bernie’s stance on such interventions differs very little.
“Here’s the non-conspiracy take on Bernie’s uptick with African Americans.” — Bob, who put forward a conspiracy theory about the Black vote for Sanders? Serious question. I’m not seeing too much paranoia on the HRC side of the political discourse equation.
I think it’s great that the Black vote is split a bit between the two candidates actually. For the first time in a long time, Black Americans will have two candidates actively addressing their interests and competing for their vote on the stump. Obama never really did that, much to my disappointment. As an electoral block they have been taken for granted for too long and pandered to. This is a great turn of events. They would be served by a growing Black GOP faction too. Gets their issues a seat at the table. Hasn’t happened in a very long time.
Jean, I think you suggested Republican spoilers were responsible for elevating Bernie’s numbers. And as we’ve seen, you have been wrong on every point you have made. Your points are remakably similar to the ones Clinton’s PR people are dropping on the news channels this morning. A steaming load of excuses.
Regardless of whether Bernie can really upset, the truth is now exposed. She is a weak candidate and she could even lose to Donald Trump.
Nate should stick to baseball
Some are arguing that Bernie didn’t win on his own merits, but that he won because Hillary supporters, feeling confident that her victory was in the bag, crossed the aisle to vote for Kasich.
The tone of the national coverage about yesterday’s results bothers me. While news organizations are calling it an upset, they aren’t positioning it as a possible turning point in the campaign. The coverage that I’ve seen has essentially said, “While Michigan was an upset, Sanders needs to win bigger states decisively for us to take him seriously.” I feel this story is bigger than that. He is getting more of the African America and Muslim vote. He is beating the polls by 20 points. He’s bringing people to the polls in numbers we haven’t seen since 1972. Where’s the headline that asks, “Is Clinton fading?” Where’s the headline that says, “Making enormous strides, the Sanders campaign has the momentum going into Florida and Ohio”?
“Some are arguing that Bernie didn’t win on his own merits, but that he won because Hillary supporters, feeling confident that her victory was in the bag, crossed the aisle to vote for Kasich.”
This is definitely possible. I almost did it until I realized how many people I know that were voting for Sanders.
I would not discount this entirely.
A Sanders Presidency would be a disaster. It was unfortunate that Michigan voters don’t realize that.
Peter Larson:
“You can’t trust people who do math.”
“A Sanders Presidency would be a disaster.”
Just sayin’ …
I don’t recommend that anyone listen to me. Like most people, I am wrong the vast majority of the time.
That being said, I live abroad, in a country at war. Sanders would be a complete disaster. We’d have an Al Shabab attack and Sanders would start complaining about Wall Street and campaign finance.
Aside from the very real possibility that he’d be a one term President. We’d be stuck with a Republican for eight years following.
These are just my opinions. People can ignore them if they like. My opinions are meaningless.
I do find myself wondering about Sanders’s management style. I just don’t know enough about it and although the position is executive, we never seem to want to discuss that. I think back to Jimmy Carter, who on the issues was everything I would ever want in a president but who apparently was something of a micromanager in office. Is Bernie a good manager of people? We know Clinton is. I hope that he is. If he isn’t though, it could mean a one term situation.
Lynne,
Sanders will be the perfect manager. He has no flaws at all. All negative information you see is a conspiracy of the Clinton campaign who just want to keep everyone down.
We all know that everyone uniformly supports Sanders. If they don’t they have been threatened by the mass media.
Hillary flip-flops on Snyder resignation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS0kbLGI8Tc
“That being said, I live abroad, in a country at war. Sanders would be a complete disaster. We’d have an Al Shabab attack and Sanders would start complaining about Wall Street and campaign finance. ”
fox news-worthy commentary. could you sprinkle even an ounce of wit in your comments? a half-ounce? something to make them less tedious?
The Clinton/Sanders online bootchfest has finally opened my eyes to everything everyone else hates about everyday Democrats.
Mlive.com has breakdowns of how the area voted, by city and townships. For the people here who are forever bashing Saline as being so Republican, Saline went 61% for Bernie and 39% for Hillary. That’s just 6% less than Ypsi. 5% more than Ann Arbor. If my math is correct. I’m no Nate Silverm
I suppose that’s only registered Dems, but still seems significant to me anyway. I was happy to see that even in Saline, way more voted for Bernie than Trump. Or even Kasich.
I just got a call from Bernie HQ. They want me to take a “Journey for Bernie” to either OH or IL. I imagine they’re asking everyone from Michigan to go and see if maybe we can keep the streak alive.
It’s not mainstream media, Question, but here’s the headline I think you were looking for. It’s on Salon.
“It should be over for Hillary: Party elites and MSNBC can’t prop her up after Bernie’s Michigan miracle”
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_should_be_over_for_hillary_party_elites_and_msnbc_cant_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/
“fox news-worthy commentary. could you sprinkle even an ounce of wit in your comments? a half-ounce? something to make them less tedious?”
If you don’t like the comments, don’t read them. Not sure why you waste your time. You have made it clear that you don’t like me or anything I have to say.
Kjc, Someday you will realize just how generous everyone on this site has been toward you.
I’m sure she is pleasant in real life.
I am unpleasant everywhere.
fivethirtyeight.com: “Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.”
fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/
My opinion (which is meaningless) is that this isn’t a political upset.
This is a case of bad survey sampling design. It’s not like people woke up on Tuesday and changed their minds all of the sudden. It’s that people running the polls were working with a sample unrepresentative of the population they were interested.
How could it be anything except a political upset? She has the DNC machine gaming the system, fixing debates in her favor, and all the money in the world. Not to mention a very popular ex president who pretends to sleep with her. That Bernie is even in the thing is an upset. I think the pollsters are probably missing a huge chunk of people who no longer have land lines or use traditional media. I no longer have a working home line, I usually get tons of calls and often provided survey information. I suspect people are hipper to fucking with the pollsters too. I often did. Filling basketball stadiums isn’t a fluke. There is something real happening. I don’t know that he can go all the way but I woke up today thinking it isn’t impossible.
It wasn’t just one survey, Pete. According to FiveThirtyEight, they were using approximately 20 different surveys, all by well-respected pollsters. It’ll be really interesting to see what happens next Tuesday. If the same thing happens in Illinois and Ohio, things are going to get really strange.
Most people did not think Bernie would win. Our perceptions of who the winner would be were upset or overturned. Our expectations of Bernie’s chances moving forward have changed to some extent–that is an “upset” by definition.
Bob– I was suggesting scenarios to explain the polling failure. I did not assert that I was right. I suggested multiple scenarios I think. Musing out loud in this forum is probably not wise… It was early. I was just guessing. Sounds like a fair number– 7% of Dem voters crossed over to vote GOP to take out Trump– thinking a Hillary win was secure or maybe not caring which Dem won. 3% of GOP voters crossed over to vote Dem. We can only guess at motivation but most voted Sanders. It made a difference, but I think Millennials and Black voters were the biggest factor. All the polls seemed to underestimate that vote in their multipliers — or whatever the right word is for their guesses on how many of each demographic will vote. Sanders eeked it out. Not a mandate. The polling was terribly off– and consistently off across different MI polls– (which raises big questions for me.) An anomaly, unless it happens again. Content to wait and see. I don’t mind the MI result. It’s all good. Tight races are good for voter engagement, news coverage of issues, etc.
Everybody be nice to one another. But don’t be nice to the candidates. They need our criticisms and vetting. It makes them stronger.
“It wasn’t just one survey, Pete. According to FiveThirtyEight, they were using approximately 20 different surveys, all by well-respected pollsters.”
Yes, likely all using the same poor methodology.
If the pollsters would have chosen samples representative of the voting population, they would have found a different result.
But they didn’t and they don’t seem to be willing to admit it.
It is really interesting (and telling) that some here are proposing that Bernie’s victory is some kind of aberration … merely the result of voters “crossing over” to screw with Trump, or pollsters who miscalculated support among blacks, millennials, etc.
The important fact these statements ignore is that primary turnout on Tuesday shattered the previous record set nearly 45 years ago – in 1972! To me, this suggests tons of voters who have been largely disengaged from (or disillusioned with) the traditional political process decided it was worth coming out to vote because they saw in Bernie an opportunity to make a statement against “Republican-lite” party hacks, corporate control, and the growing dominance of dark-money superPACs.
I think the proof of that is recent statements by the Clinton campaign that – in response to Sanders’ Michigan win – they need to “sharpen” their message on income inequality, corporate responsibility, job-killing free trade agreements, etc.
If Clinton really believed in any of these things, she would have been highlighting (and fighting for) them all along – not just parroting what Bernie says just because it is winning him votes!
When Republicans outperform polls, people generally suggest tampering. Why is it that in this case the subject hasn’t come up?
Maybe this is a sign that polls are becoming less and less able to predict outcomes? I hope that is the case. I think that is a good thing.
That’s true, Demetrius– the turnout was amazing, But this was the very first race where the Dem voting turnout was amazing. So it’s still an anomaly not a pattern. Let’s see what happens. Also 20,000 votes is not a big margin. Discussing all factors in such a tight race seems relevant. Not trying to take away Bernie’s win. It was a good one. It is pushing HRC to the left on issues, because she has always been responsive to the electorate and poll (not donation) driven in her decision making. That may not seem ideologically pure to you but we do live in a representational democracy, and it’s kind of the job of politicians to listen to the electorate. There is some weird kind of social media demand afoot by Sanders supporters for the major media coverage to be as laudatory of Sanders as they are. That’s not what the media does. That’s what blogs like this one do.
Where is the evidence that anyone crossed party lines to set up Bernie? I’m sure a few did. Probably the same as the number of Dems who want Trump as their opponent. I suspect it’s a negligible number. Normal people don’t operate that way. Ohio will be a good indicator of how much trouble Shillary is really in. How about the debate last night. Bernie is hammering away at her relationship with Wal Street as she stands there grinning like a freak. Voters are just taking a real, honest look at her now, I think. I think we are in trouble with her come November. If the GOP somehow manages to get it together with a viable candidate, we will lose.
Re: Bob’s “Not to mention a very popular ex president who pretends to sleep with her. ” and “Shillary”
I am just pointing this out for those who insist that Bernie Bros aren’t a thing. Carry on.
As for the Bernie win. There is no doubt in my mind that he is getting out the vote and I agree that is a good thing for sure. My hope is that if he wins and we have a President Sanders that these same people will continue with this voting habit because it is with other elections that we can make the most change.
What the fuck has Hillary done to command such respect from people? It’s not just women either, plenty of men seem as prone to make excuses for her. She has sold out working people, over and over. I don’t get it. If calling her a shill makes me a Bernie bro, so be it.
Mark Maynard: One of the most influential independent journalists in Michigan, where our motto is “Um, sorry about the comments. Peter’s off his meds.”
Here’s some actual data so you yahoos don’t hurt yourselves thinking about this too much:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/
Bob, I am sorry. I misread that and thought it was “Shrillery” like you were saying that she sounded shrill to you. “Shill” isn’t sexist to me but still seems strong on the hyperbole.
I have to wonder why some people can’t see anything good about Clinton. I like Sanders better to be sure but I also really like her. My only complaint about her is that her positions are a little bit more conservative than mine are.
Bernie got a standing ovation during last night’s debate in Florida. He may not do as badly there as we think.
“I have to wonder why some people can’t see anything good about Clinton.”
A strange formulation, as if the problem is in the individuals who somehow can’t “see” what you see. I’d say you should go read up on her longstanding support for destructive neoliberal policies. Then you won’t have to wonder.
LOL Kjc, And you think that assuming that I arrived at my opinion without reading up on her record is any different from suggesting that the problem is that people can’t see what I see in her? Trust me, I am very aware of Clinton’s record and her positions on things and I still like and admire her. Luckily it turns out that most Bernie supporters are like me and while we might like him better, we still like her. I suspect that the Hillary loving Bernie supporters are just less passionate on the internet so I hear less from them.
FWIW, I mostly made that statement in response to Bob’s question “What the fuck has Hillary done to command such respect from people?”. It was a lazy response to be sure, mostly because I didn’t feel like going into any of the many of things Clinton has done for which I admire her. And I do admire her. I was framing things in that way because it was the opposite of how Bob was framing things and I just wanted to make it clear that kind of “I don’t understand what anyone sees in _______” framing goes both ways. It is just as valid to say “I don’t understand why anyone doesn’t see the good in _____” Neither are particularly good statements. It is interesting though that you picked up so quickly on the flaws of my statement while completely ignoring Bob’s. Just sayin’
I’m not sure why pointing out that polling design might be insufficient to accurately predict the outcome of an election warrants meds.
I’m not sure if the comment was directed at me, but I don’t view the Sanders win as an aberration. Honestly, I don’t think we should be surprised. I won’t vote for him, but I understand why others would.
Conclusions based upon assumptions can’t even be raised to the status of opinion. It is a form of dishonesty.
o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Not that it matters, but my last comment was in no way a reaction to anything you said, Jean. I see that my statement needs to be cleaned up but I am not sure how to say what I am trying to say. Sometimes assumptions are not just honest guesses because the facts are not accessible or known. Sometimes assumptions are more like inventions. The impulse to create these inventions sometimes comes from a dark place with no desire or orientation toward the truth. I am not sure if there is a word for those types of assumptions. Judgments based upon those types of “assumptions” are a form of dishonesty. I don’t think they can rightly be called opinions either insofar as I don’t believe there is such a thing as dishonest opinion any more than there is such a thing as a dishonest perception.
The word you are looking for is delusion I think. And it’s not dishonesty because it lacks intent to deceive. It’s part of the human condition and always has been. See Buddhism.
I wasn’t taking your comment personally. I couldn’t make sense of it. Not sure what it was in reference to still. Plenty of delusion to go around.
I know your comment wasn’t pointed at me but delusion could be my word of the day. It’s been that kind of day. Fighting delusion is like pushing against a curtain. Nothing moves. I almost said ’tilting at windmills’ but that would be more satisfying. At least there would be impact. Tilting at curtains maybe.
I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of delusion but I think that is probably the healthier way to think about it. Thanks Jean.
Just happy to not piss one person off today, FF.
@ Brainless
These are the two most fascinating revelations in the poll you posted:
“Voters under 30 made up 19 percent of Democratic primary voters, nearly as large a share as voters 65 or older …”
“Not only did more young voters turn out than expected, but Sanders won 81 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds.”
For years, it has been accepted wisdom that young people are apathetic about politics, and don’t generally turn out to vote – especially in primaries, and off-year elections – but this year they clearly did care, and they definitely showed up. In fact, this phenomena seems largely responsible for Bernie’s win in Michigan.
This is completely anecdotal, but young people I know told me they were supporting Bernie because they thought he was the most “genuine,” and because they appreciate his principled stand on not taking money from corporations or superPACs.
Since these young people are our future voters, perhaps politicians in both parties who want to continue to win elections need to think about that.
Despite polls showing it the race was close, Sanders won Wisconsin last night by 13 points.
Sanders split women’s votes 49-49%; won among all voters under age 50 (including 73% of those under 45); and won 40% of non-white voters.
This is the sixth straight caucus/primary in a row that Sanders has won, and among his biggest delegate prizes in the race so far.
Glad we are going to get all that free stuff, and those evil banks will go away… oh, and the Saudis can fight ISIS, and we’ll keep those cheap Mexicans out, and make stuff here in the USA once again.
Whew. It’s going to be a political revolution. Kill those rich people.
Don’t worry Mr. Larson . Mrs.Clinton will be the candidate. There will be no revolution. You can stop fretting about the rich. They will be fine. There will be no pitchforks in the streets. They will continue to donate to institutions. The institutions will continue to make grants to help the poor. Nothing will change. Relax.
From today’s NYT:
After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore
PHILADELPHIA — In a luxury suite high above the convention floor, some of the Democratic Party’s most generous patrons sipped cocktails and caught up with old friends, tuning out Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Monday as he bashed Wall Street in an arena named after one of the country’s largest banks.
On Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton became the first female nominee of a major party, a handful of drug companies and health insurers made sure to echo the theme, paying to sponsor an “Inspiring Women” panel featuring Democratic congresswomen.
And in the vaulted marble bar of the Ritz-Carlton downtown, wealthy givers congregated in force for cocktails and glad-handing, as protesters thronged just outside to voice their unhappiness with Wall Street, big money in politics and Mrs. Clinton herself.
“This is a good place to be — for a lot of reasons,” said former Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a Democrat now running for Congress, as he glided through the room on Tuesday. “We must have set up five fund-raisers today. This is the bank.”
After a wrenching yearlong nominating battle with searing debates over the influence of Wall Street and the ability of ordinary citizens to be heard over the din of dollars changing hands, the party’s moneyed elite returned to the fore this week, undeterred and mostly unabashed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donors.html
NYT Times Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders – How Democrats Can Stop Losing Elections
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-how-democrats-can-stop-losing-elections.html
I hope that addresses redistricting reform. Otherwise it’s bushit.
As many of us suspected – despite his big win here in Michigan – it turns out Bernie really never really had a chance, after all.
Former ABC News commentator and Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile is publishing a new book called “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.”
An excerpt on Politico today, titled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC” describes how, long before her nomination, the Clinton Campaign effectively “took over” control of the Democratic Party – to the detriment of other presidential contenders, state party organizations, and down-ballot candidates.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
This is the part that remains unestablished: to the detriment of other presidential contenders, state party organizations, and down-ballot candidates.
The rest was largely known, except that the Victory fund assumed fiduciary responsibility for a failing DNC, which allowed the primary to take place. So to me, since clinton raised the funds that Obama failed to, it looks like Bernie received a net benefit from Mrs Clinton;s largesse.
There remains no proof that the results were manipulated in any way, except that Brazille got busted releasing the debate questions to HRC. Of course she probably released them to Sanders too. Also please remember that each state Dem party runs its own primary.
Not sure how HRC damaged down ticket when at least she (as opposed to Sanders) stumped for them and she raised the necessary funds to hold the primaries at all, much less fund races.
Curious, Demetrius as to what alternative scenario would have pleased you? I suppose they could have declared their financial peril, opening themselves up to financial attack by the right. And maybe had Bernie pay up his share to hold the race at all?
It’s amazing how persistent the narrative of victimization is by the Sanders camp.
Here is my take ripped from the pages of FB:
So, HRC’s victory fund raised millions of dollars which they funneled into a failing DNC to keep it afloat. –This was in HRC’s book as well as Brazile’s– (solid sales promotion strategy Donna!) and talked about during the primary) — The Victory fund also assumed fiduciary responsibility for the failing organization, keeping it afloat so as not to disrupt the election process.
That money from HRC was then used to support all candidates and run the primaries. There is no indication of favoritism in distribution of funds. It appears Bernie’s campaign benefited substantially from HRC’s capacity to fund raise and run things competently.
So… at the same time… a Harris poll is released showing that Bernie, because he did not lose to Trump, is now the most popular politician in America.And much of America supports his core platform (if not the anti-globalism part).
So do Bernie and crew seize this great news to create positive progressive momentum and build organizational capacity towards the revolution they aspire to?
No they double down on the rigged election narrative. Both bits of news confirm their narrative that they were victimized, the poll and the BRazille piece. This is their preferred reality.
Progressives and radicals! You can not win so long as you can only conceive of yourself and function as victims and underdogs. You must prepare for the power you want to assume.