Monday, July 25, 2016

in the wake of recent news, authors highlight that the system isn't rigged against Sanders, he's just thoroughly failed to beat Clinton at winning over minority votes.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/for-the-last-time-heres-proof-the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged-against-bernie-sanders/

...

The bottom line is this: The primary wasn’t rigged.

I know quite a few pro-Sanders folks want to believe that it was, but it wasn’t. Bernie Sanders lost the nomination because he couldn’t win the minority vote — end of story. This is not about some convoluted conspiracy, or some nefarious ploy by the DNC to hand the nomination to Hillary

Clinton, it’s about basic, indisputable math and reality.
A few weeks ago I did a complete mathematical breakdown of the entire Democratic primary, which you can check out here.

But let me run down a few of the numbers that prove these conspiracies are ridiculous.
Of the 50 states, Clinton won 28 while Sanders won 22. So, she only won six more states than he did. One would think of the DNC really wanted to “rig” the election, she would have won it much easier than she did — and Sanders certainly wouldn’t have won 22 states.


The author goes on to highlight that Clinton overwhelmingly won the non-white vote in comparison to Sanders, which sort of confirms a point I've hinted at here and there that populist agitators like Sanders and Trump may appeal to angry whites on the left and right respectively, but that it's not a foregone conclusion that people of color will assume a vote for Sanders is ultimately in their best interest.

Conversely, a small group of authors at Slate declaring that the people who hate Hillary Clinton hate her because she's a woman or hate her for the opposite reasons of why they said they hated her twenty years ago is another lost cause.  Obama didn't win the nomination of the Democratic party away from Clinton out of thin air on the basis of nothing.  Some of the trouble might possibly be that the left and the right have spent so much time moving the goalposts that while people on the right might see Clinton as functionally a nanny state socialist people on the left see her as encased in a corrupt mainstream establishmentarian power structure.  Clinton's candidacy could be under skepticism from the left and right alike in part because after generations of moving the goalposts in partisan polemics where ever Clinton lands today is going to be the place from which the left and right partisans moved the goal posts away a week ago. 

There's another slightly longer thinkpiece on why the system isn't rigged against Sanders that explores the discrepancy between caucus and primary results over here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Sanders threw his hat into the Democratic ring at late enough an hour it's hardly a surprise he hasn't secured a nomination by now.  It seems at this point that people who want Sanders might have to live with a comparable level of disappointment to those Republicans who really, really wish Trump wasn't the presumptive candidate--the Democratic National Convention may work in a way that doesn't allow the populist agitator to hijack the party system the way the Republican system has, perhaps, but the irony may be here that Sanders supporters are actually angry about that.  If there was a reason to brag that the Democratic party can't be hijacked by populist agitators you'd think this moment could be the moment to brag about that.

But then it seems as though there are a lot of Americans who only value democratic processes and procedures for just so long as it gets them the results they want, and that this demographic exists in robust forms on both the left and the right.
asf

No comments: