Monday, February 22, 2016

Well, we all wish something better for us had happened

If wishes were horses:

Sanders, who won the New Hampshire primary, discussed his loss on NBC's "Meet the Press." He touted his win among Latino voters, but noted the turnout rate.

"But the voter turnout was not as high as I had wanted," Sanders said. "And what I've said over and over again, we will do well when young people, when working-class people come out. We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout."

Or is it "If frogs had wings"?

Total vote count for Nevada Democratic caucus 2016:    11389  Clinton got 52.7% of the vote, Sanders got 47.2% of the vote.

So, yeah, the game would have gone better if my team had scored more points and, you know, won.  I've said over and over again, my team does well when they score more points than the other team, and they don't do well when they don't.

You can just kinda tell he's new at this.


  1. I think the win in New Hampshire had more to do with geographic proximity than passionate support.

    I don't know what to make of the Saunders or No One people, though for those who remember the 2000 election and the next eight years basic immaturity and/or stupidity has to come into it. I think that Saunders is, actually, better than a large part of his fan base. If he wants to "push the window" to the left, his best hope of doing that is to get some guarantees from Hillary Clinton, he'll find it's a lot more likely to happen than it will that he'll push a Trump leftward. I don't know how far he could go in that, I'd start by asking for the moon, something like a firm guarantee that her financial and economic team would be from the Warren-Saunders wing of the Democratic Party. He wouldn't get all of it but he might get some of it.

    I'd, of course, hold out for a ban on Ivy League equivalent on high court appointees and appointees for Education. It wouldn't happen but even a break in the stranglehold that culture has on the law would be progress.

  2. What happened to "millions will rise up"? Of course, Sanders didn't mean millions were going to turn out for a caucus in Nevada, but the groundswell of popular support didn't happen, either.

  3. I like that Sanders is pushing Clinton to the left. I even understand how he's giving voice to the "voiceless."

    Problem is, like Trump's supporters, most of Sanders' supporters seem to think there's a simple solution to our problems, and all that's required is their vote.

    And I gotta agree with June: where's the groundswell of support? It's not showing up in the polls so far.

  4. I like Sanders; I like most of his policies. If I thought he was electable, and, if elected, Sanders would have a reasonable chance of getting his proposals through Congress, I'd vote for him. I am pleased he's in the race and has moved Clinton's policies to the left. I have no difficulty defining myself as a social democrat, insofar as labels have meaning in today's politics.

    Having said that, I'm also pragmatic. Single-payer healthcare would be a vast improvement over what we have now, but Sanders' program, which he calls Medicare for All, is no such thing, and he should correct the info on his website. Any single payer proposal would have zero chance of becoming law in the next Congress, even if Democrats achieve a slim majority in the Senate.

    Early voting in Louisiana began this past Saturday, and I voted for Clinton.

  5. Given Clinton won in heavily Hispanic districts, there is some doubt as to the entry polling that claims Sanders won the Hispanic vote. 200 samples in a handful of districts was probably insufficient to draw a conclusion. The images at least from Sander's rallies do not indicate inclusive support across racial lines. I was trying to find the article I read that gave some thoughtful analysis on the Hispanic voting in Nevada but my Google skills are letting me down.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.