Support NeoGAF

[eyeball_kid]

He basically needs to do well in all states up to NY. Then do well in NY and not get crushed in Maryland. If he does this, it's all gonna come down to Cali (which he is still behind in)

I think Northern California will go for Bernie, Southern California will go for Clinton, and Central California will be the swing. Might go for Bernie in the same way Michigan did, if he can get his populist message out there.

The union leadership endorsed Bernie, it says nothing about the actual membership which can still go any which way it wants.

From what I've heard, the Longshoremen's union membership doesn't go any which way it wants. They definitely "keep it in the family". Let me put it this way: a Longshoreman who doesn't vote for Bernie will definitely "feel the bern".

 

[Armaros]

As president, Bernie would threaten GOP issues that Clinton wouldn't seriously touch. His biggest cause is fighting neoliberalism, something that Clinton tolerates and the GOP fights for tooth and nail. The GOP fears fiscal leftism more than they fear social leftism, so some Republicans are more comfortable with the near-certainty of a Clinton presidency rather than the risk of a Sanders presidency.



Hillary Clinton has been planning for over a decade. If experience and time are what matter most, she should have crushed this far-left insurgent before the primaries even started.

What do you call being ahead by 300 delegates, if not crushing.

The only reason why the primary isn't over is because Bernie hasent given up like every other politician would have done by now.

By all numbers, Hillary is crushing Sanders at the ballot box.

 

[Azzanadra]

The the working class is supporting the only candidate who actually cares about the working class? If only this happened more often, which sadly is not the case.

 

[Wafflecakes]

From what I've heard, the Longshoremen's union membership doesn't go any which way it wants. They definitely "keep it in the family". Let me put it this way: a Longshoreman who doesn't vote for Bernie will definitely "feel the bern".

Ah voter intimidation.

Change we can all believe in!

 

[Lkr]

I'm glad he continues to see support even if he isn't doing well at the ballot. It gets the idea out that there are dozens of us that believe in his causes

 

[nitekrawlwer]

But he isn't losing as much as people thought. Again, while I don't expect a Sanders win, he's giving Hillary Clinton a real run for her money. He's a septuagenarian socialist from a backwater state with personal convictions against the most effective means of fundraising. Nobody thought this could be possible.



Well, no. She isn't crushing him. Bernie Sanders, on paper, is a weaker candidate than Jim Webb or O'Malley. But despite coming from the political left field, he's racked up a huge amount of delegates. His success points to major flaws in Clinton's campaign, which (if not treated) could sink her in the general.

He's 300+ behind in delegates. I think it's closer to 700 if you include super delegates. Or you can look at popular vote. This is a race and he is being smoked or crushed or whatever.

His "success" has done nothing to Hilary. He hasn't moved her left one iota. Young people have always been disillusioned by the political system. Not catering to people who don't vote is not some flaw in her campaign. Nor is the money that she has and has invested in her impressive lead.

 

[eyeball_kid]

Ah voter intimidation.

Change we can all believe in!

Moreso intimidation as a general policy. But it's not like anyone can prove how you voted, so. I hope people will vote their conscience, but I assume most union members also take at least some stock in what their union leaders decide is the best candidate for their industry.

 

[SolarPowered]

This is great news. More people warming up the idea of a Euro style lefty (center by their standards but still) non-Christian is a good thing for this country. I know it's practically impossible that he will win, but our country needs big ideas, honesty and big aspirations just as much as pragmatism.

Probably the most true statement in this thread. She will basically act as though she cares, then suddenly, she won't.

Probably, but at least the people won't forget, especially the young democrat voters who'll be taking over for the next 40-50 years.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

His polling lead must continue.

 

[Wall]

No. Bernie has ignored the realities of the structure of the political parties for decades. Not me. I'm just not smitten enough with his revolution to call his lack of planning and foresight a disadvantage, but instead the self imposed failure it is.

I think we might be talking past each other. Sanders chose not to become a Democrat until he decided to run for President. If he were a Democrat, then yes, he might have gotten more institutional support from elements of the Democratic party who are sympathetic to his ideas. If you want to slight him for that choice, then be my guest.

My point is that, despite the lack of institutional support Sanders did receive, whether or not he could have done something about that lack of support through different choices without comprising his platform, Sanders has still done incredibly well against a heavily funded candidate with unmatched name recognition and institutional backing.

If you look at where that support is coming from, it is clear that the support Sanders is receiving is coming primarily because he is responding to issues facing young people that are arising as a result of economic changes in the United States. Looking at how well he does with independents and his strength in head to head polls with Republicans, it is likely that at least some of the support Sanders is getting from those groups comes because of his focus on those issues as well.

Given that, I think everyone, especially Democrats, need to pay attention to how well he did because it shows where the electorate is moving ideologically. It is likely that any candidate with Sander's message would have found similar support, and they might even have done better if they had made different choices, as you point out. The problem is finding candidates who are willing to respond to the needs of voters that Sanders's campaign uncovered.

If the only message people take away from this primary is that Sanders got crushed, then finding such candidates in the future will be more difficult. In any case, for the present, Sanders is the only candidate who appears willing to run on the message and platform that resonates because it responds to the present needs of voters, especially young voters. Because of that fact, it is better for him to continue running to demonstrate how much support he has.

His endorsement from the longshormen is the latest indication of that support.

 

[Macho Madness]

I think we might be talking past each other. Sanders chose not to become a Democrat until he decided to run for President. If he were a Democrat, then yes, he might have gotten more institutional support from elements of the Democratic party who are sympathetic to his ideas. If you want to slight him for that choice, then be my guest.

My point is that, despite the lack of institutional support Sanders did receive, whether or not he could have done something about that lack of support through different choices without comprising his platform, Sanders has still done incredibly well against a heavily funded candidate with unmatched name recognition and institutional backing.

If you look at where that support is coming from, it is clear that the support Sanders is receiving is coming primarily because he is responding to issues facing young people that are arising as a result of economic changes in the United States. Looking at how well he does with independents and his strength in head to head polls with Republicans, it is likely that at least some of the support Sanders is getting from those groups comes because of his focus on those issues as well.

Given that, I think everyone, especially Democrats, need to pay attention to how well he did because it shows where the electorate is moving ideologically. It is likely that any candidate with Sander's message would have found similar support, and they might even have done better if they had made different choices, as you point out. The problem is finding candidates who are willing to respond to the needs of voters that Sanders's campaign uncovered.

If the only message people take away from this primary is that Sanders got crushed, then finding such candidates in the future will be more difficult. In any case, for the present, Sanders is the only candidate who appears willing to run on the message and platform that resonates because it responds to the present needs of voters, especially young voters. Because of that fact, it is better for him to continue running to demonstrate how much support he has.

His endorsement from the longshormen is the latest indication of that support.

I'm not voting for Sanders but I'm with you.

 

[Quixzlizx]

How exactly is he not going to get knocked the fuck out in NY?

Even if he somehow manages a tie there, he's still screwed, but a tie seems like the absolute most optimistic projection (unless you're Ashodin/TYT).

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Love when a new Bernie thread pops up. The responses are glorious

It's amazing you use that gif to celebrate Bernie. Out of all the gifs in the world...

 

[nitekrawlwer]

I think we might be talking past each other. Sanders chose not to become a Democrat until he decided to run for President. If he were a Democrat, then yes, he might have gotten more institutional support from elements of the Democratic party who are sympathetic to his ideas. If you want to slight him for that choice, then be my guest.

My point is that, despite the lack of institutional support Sanders did receive, whether or not he could have done something about that lack of support through different choices without comprising his platform, Sanders has still done incredibly well against a heavily funded candidate with unmatched name recognition and institutional backing.

If you look at where that support is coming from, it is clear that the support Sanders is receiving is coming primarily because he is responding to issues facing young people that are arising as a result of economic changes in the United States. Looking at how well he does with independents and his strength in head to head polls in Republicans, it is likely that at least some of the support Sanders is getting from those groups is coming because of his focus on those issues as well.

Given that, I think everyone, especially Democrats, need to pay attention to how well he did because it shows where the electorate is moving ideologically. It is likely that any candidate with Sander's message would have found similar support, and they might even have done better if they had made different choices, as you point out. The problem is finding candidates who are willing to respond to the needs of voters that Sanders's campaign uncovered.

If the only message people take away from this primary is that Sanders got crushed, then finding such candidates in the future will be more difficult. In any case, for the present, Sanders is the only candidate who appears willing to run on the message and platform that resonates because it responds to the present needs of voters, especially young voters. Because of that fact, it is better for him to continue running to demonstrate how much support he has.

Or he could have developed a coalition of Independents. It's not like only Republicans and Democrats are allowed to build a network of like minded individuals for support. It's not just a criticism for using the Democratic party while throwing it and its leaders under the bus though that is a particularly valid criticism. It's an indictment on his skills as a politician as a whole. A politicians who has built next to no support before their election is a bad politician. It's like launching a kickstarter without the months of community building.

Obama overcame all of that and won to boot with a much shorter career. Beat Clinton's unmatched name recognition, heavily funded campaign and the institutional support of the party for her. I don't think Bernie is doing incredibly well. Primaries end in June. We aren't half way there and his chances to win have been for a couple of weeks pretty close to mathematically impossible.

It's not as if concerns for economic factors that heavily influence one's life is a new trend. I know people want Bernie to be special somehow but really. I would also not derive arguments from polling data for the general so far away from it. It's pretty well known to be junk data. So excuse me if I don't think highly of the rest of your conclusions drawn from it.

If Bernie Sanders platform resonates what conclusion should we draw from the person who convinced even more people. Surely you don't think that with superior numbers of the popular vote other candidates platforms aren't resonating.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm pretty sure he is still down in the polls, but I don't know how recent they are.
California might decide the election if Bernie manages to keep it close.

If he gets destroyed in New York it might be over before that.

He basically needs to do well in all states up to NY. Then do well in NY and not get crushed in Maryland. If he does this, it's all gonna come down to Cali (which he is still behind in)

If he keeps it close in California he still loses. He needs to win huge in California like basically 60-40 or higher

 

[eyeball_kid]

Bernie apparently also picked up the Portland Association of Birds Union today.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Bernie apparently also picked up the Portland Association of Birds Union today.

Bernie is officially for the birds.

 

[richardhawk]

It's gonna be nice seeing the first female president in my life time.

 

[boiled goose]

If he keeps it close in California he still loses. He needs to win huge in California like basically 60-40 or higher

Yup.

 

[loki 16]

Bernie apparently also picked up the Portland Association of Birds Union today.

Lol Mother Nature endorses Bernie.

 

[daegan]

Sanders's campaign started out with basically him and a small group of operatives (likely in the single digits) who hadn't been hired by anyone else. Compare that with the Clinton campaign, which had the institutional advantage of both Clinton and Obama's political networks to start, and was about as large of medium sized company by the beginning of this year. Is it any wonder that the Clinton campaign has been better connected and better organized?

Sanders campaign relies mostly on amateurs (a lot of former Occupy people, actually) along with paid staffers who the campaign only was able to start hiring this past fall once the online fundraising operation got going. Because the entire Democratic party and most unions basically decided to support Clinton before the nomination began, the Sanders campaign needed to build a campaign infrastructure from scratch. That's something even the Obama campaign didn't need to do because Obama always had at least some institutional backing - he'd given a major speech at the 2004 Democratic convention for goodness sake - even at the beginning.

Despite those disadvantages, the Sanders campaign has managed to gain the support of at least 40 percent of Democrats if you go by national polling.

The Real Clear Politics poll aggregator has him with an average of 42.5 percent support (Clinton +9)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls

and the pollster.com aggregator, which incorporates more polls so is better, also has with with the same level of support and down by a slightly smaller margin.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Looking at the trend-lines on both aggregators, Sanders still appears to be gaining ground on Clinton as well.

In addition to that, Sanders does better in every poll against every Republican candidate than Clinton. Many people like to dismiss this point by saying that general election polls at this point aren't very predictive (true-although it gets harder to make this point once you get into April), that Sanders hasn't faced Republican attacks that will turn people against him (somewhat true, but its highly debatable how much this will matter), and that Clinton has faced every attack the Republicans have thrown at her (untrue). Nevertheless, its hard to ignore this pattern because it occurs across all polls, lines up with other measures (favor-ability ratings), and seems to reflect some of the crossover support Sanders got in places like Michigan.

Most importantly, Sanders is getting the support of the vast majority of millennials who are voting. Considering millennials are the largest age demographic and will play an increasing roll in politics going forward, the Democrats can't afford to ignore that. If this primary were held 4 years from now, Sanders would have won Iowa, Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri, and maybe Nevada. In addition, the he would have won the states he did win by wider margins and lost the states he lost by smaller margins. If this primary were held 8 years from now, Sanders would have won handily. That is how generational changes in an electorate work. Not only does the candidate winning the larger share of younger voters gain as those voters become a bigger portion of the electorate, the candidate gaining most of his or her support from older generations loses that support as older cohorts age out of the electorate and stops voting.

Sanders won't win the primary, but he still has every reason to stay in the race to demonstrate that support. Sometimes, candidates run in elections with goals other than winning, especially primary elections. If Sanders were to drop out now, many would do what they are already doing: try to write off the platform he is running on as a flash in the pan that won't amount to anything. To prevent that, I hope Sanders does what he appears to be doing: consolidating his support in the hopes of fighting for the Democratic Party to represent at least some of what he wants at the convention. Considering Democrats will need Sanders supporters to vote for them during the 2016-2024 period, that is only fair. That is how primaries and political conventions work.

There are a lot of people on either side of the Democratic token that don't realize just how much your average person who isn't voting in the dem primary feels about Hillary. There is a lot of (mostly unfounded) dislike, or worse. A GOP presidency terrifies me, but I don't think Hillary can win a general election.

 

[Wall]

Or he could have developed a coalition of Independents. It's not like only Republicans and Democrats are allowed to build a network of like minded individuals for support. It's not just a criticism for using the Democratic party while throwing it and its leaders under the bus though that is a particularly valid criticism. It's an indictment on his skills as a politician as a whole. A politicians who has built next to no support before their election is a bad politician. It's like launching a kickstarter without the months of community building.

Obama overcame all of that and won to boot with a much shorter career. Beat Clinton's unmatched name recognition, heavily funded campaign and the institutional support of the party for her. I don't think Bernie is doing incredibly well. Primaries end in June. We aren't half way there and his chances to win have been for a couple of weeks pretty close to mathematically impossible.

It's not as if concerns for economic factors that heavily influence one's life is a new trend. I know people want Bernie to be special somehow but really. I would also not derive arguments from polling data for the general so far away from it. It's pretty well known to be junk data. So excuse me if I don't think highly of the rest of your conclusions drawn from it.

If Bernie Sanders platform resonates what conclusion should we draw from the person who convinced even more people. Surely you don't think that with superior numbers of the popular vote other candidates platforms aren't resonating.

You still seem to think I'm somehow trying to argue Sanders is perfect or some political genius. The overall point I am trying to make is not specific to Sanders at all.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

You still seem to think I'm somehow trying to argue Sanders is perfect or some political genius. The overall point I am trying to make is not specific to Sanders at all.

I believe I get your point. The Democratic party doesn't listen enough to the young and you believe they will be the future. Is that a good summary?

I thought that was what you were inferring from the junk data. That's why I didn't take the time to address it even though I think it is rather misguided.

 

[Link]

However, Hillary GAF/Poligaf is quite bad as well. The amount of condescension the entire election cycle from them has been ridiculous.

When I'm being told that I'm a "closet conservative" because I plan to vote for the likely Democratic nominee, yeah, I'm going to be condescending.

 

[Wall]

I believe I get your point. The Democratic party doesn't listen enough to the young and you believe they will be the future. Is that a good summary?

I thought that was what you were inferring from the junk data. That's why I didn't take the time to address it even though I think it is rather misguided.

By definition, younger people are the future because they tend to get older. Also, based on actual votes cast, Sanders won the vast majority of millennials. The numbers aren't even close. After Super Tuesday II, he won more votes from millennials than Clinton and Trump combined. No inferences are required to draw that conclusion. I imagine that trend continued through the primaries and caucuses of the past week. He probably won the votes of people under 40 as well.

As for why, just look at that thread about younger people being priced out of starting families. Student loan debt and higher education costs are an issues millennials face that older boomers and even older members of generation X did not. Sky high housing costs in many areas also are something that didn't really become an issue until the early 2000's, so again that is an issue that older members of gen X and boomers did not face. Health care costs continue to rise as well.

Add all of that to the fact that wages have remained stagnant since basically the 70's, infrastructure continues to deteriorate to the point problems are becoming obvious, and the memories of millennials are filled with foreign policy and domestic policy failures involving establishment figures from both parties, and it is easy to see why that generation is attracted to a candidate perceived as an outsider who addresses those concerns.

My point is that any politician who decided to address millennial concerns was going to do well with that age group.

 

[Tesseract]

When I'm being told that I'm a "closet conservative" because I plan to vote for the likely Democratic nominee, yeah, I'm going to be condescending.

It's okay for it to be true, don't fight it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

By definition, younger people are the future because they tend to get older. Also, based on actual votes cast, Sanders won the vast majority of millennials. The numbers aren't even close. After Super Tuesday II, he won more votes from millennials than Clinton and Trump combined. No inferences are required to draw that conclusion. I imagine that trend continued through the primaries and caucuses of the past week. He probably won the votes of people under 40 as well.

As for why, just look at that thread about younger people being priced out of starting families. Student loan debt and higher education costs are an issues millennials face that older boomers and even older members of generation X did not. Sky high housing costs in many areas also are something that didn't really become an issue until the early 2000's, so again that is an issue that older members of gen X and boomers did not face. Health care costs continue to rise as well.

Add all of that to the fact that wages have remained stagnant since basically the 70's, infrastructure continues to deteriorate to the point problems are becoming obvious, and the memories of millennials are filled with foreign policy and domestic policy failures involving establishment figures from both parties, and it is easy to see why that generation is attracted to a candidate perceived as an outsider who addresses those concerns.

My point is that any politician who decided to address millennial concerns was going to do well with that age group.

I doubt he leads in under 40 but I'm willing to be wrong there.

That said it's pretty useless to be leading in the key demographic that just doesn't bloody vote.

You call them the largest voting block in numbers but in actuality they are the smallest because they just don't show up. Sanders could be on a path of contention if the vocal youth turned their Facebook posts and rallying into concrete numbers. They could be taken truly seriously if they showed up at the polls, but they don't, and until they do their opinions and desires frankly aren't going to be a concern of the people who actually win elections

 

[BanGy.nz]

That said it's pretty useless to be leading in the key demographic that just doesn't bloody vote.

Bernie's policy's would've been enacted decades ago if they'd just show up every 2 years, instead they kinda show up every 4 or 8 years.

 

[And_Gignac]

He's 300+ behind in delegates. I think it's closer to 700 if you include super delegates. Or you can look at popular vote. This is a race and he is being smoked or crushed or whatever.

His "success" has done nothing to Hilary. He hasn't moved her left one iota. Young people have always been disillusioned by the political system. Not catering to people who don't vote is not some flaw in her campaign. Nor is the money that she has and has invested in her impressive lead.

False. Everything you said.

Hillary has moved considerably to the left in plenty of issues thanks to the pressure of Sanders. No wonder Hillary copying Sanders is a meme.

Her lead is nothing impressive. This primary will probably end as the third most contested primary since the 70s, and the most contested one in decades where the full support of the establishment was behind one candidate (and that candidate being one of the most powerful political figures of her generation). What Bernie has done is nothing short of extraordinary

 

[Justin]

Has Bernie explained how free college would work? So I live in Seattke. If it got passed I would like to enroll at the University of Washingtion. I assume so would a million other people in the area. The university would only allow a small percentage of these people in. If I wasn't admitted then what? I would not be going to school but would still have a huge tax increase associated with the plan.

 

[noshten]

Has Bernie explained how free college would work? So I live in Seattke. If it got passed I would like to enroll at the University of Washingtion. I assume so would a million other people in the area. The university would only allow a small percentage of these people in. If I wasn't admitted then what? I would not be going to school but would still have a huge tax increase associated with the plan.

His education plan is funded by a tax on speculative and high-frequency trading.
Perhaps you were thinking of his Healthcare plan?

 

[Slayven]

False. Everything you said.

Hillary has moved considerably to the left in plenty of issues thanks to the pressure of Sanders. No wonder Hillary copying Sanders is a meme.

Her lead is nothing impressive. This primary will probably end as the third most contested primary since the 70s, and the most contested one in decades where the full support of the establishment was behind one candidate (and that candidate being one of the most powerful political figures of her generation). What Bernie has done is nothing short of extraordinary

So we going to pretend 2008 didn't happen?

 

[Ambient80]

It's not going to change math at this point guys. Bernie doesn't just need to win remaining states, he has to blow all of them out

Fixed that.

Her lead is nothing impressive. This primary will probably end as the third most contested primary since the 70s, and the most contested one in decades where the full support of the establishment was behind one candidate (and that candidate being one of the most powerful political figures of her generation). What Bernie has done is nothing short of extraordinary

LOL, ok.

 

[Malvolio]

Sanders's campaign started out with basically him and a small group of operatives (likely in the single digits) who hadn't been hired by anyone else. Compare that with the Clinton campaign, which had the institutional advantage of both Clinton and Obama's political networks to start, and was about as large of medium sized company by the beginning of this year. Is it any wonder that the Clinton campaign has been better connected and better organized?

Sanders campaign relies mostly on amateurs (a lot of former Occupy people, actually) along with paid staffers who the campaign only was able to start hiring this past fall once the online fundraising operation got going. Because the entire Democratic party and most unions basically decided to support Clinton before the nomination began, the Sanders campaign needed to build a campaign infrastructure from scratch. That's something even the Obama campaign didn't need to do because Obama always had at least some institutional backing - he'd given a major speech at the 2004 Democratic convention for goodness sake - even at the beginning.

Despite those disadvantages, the Sanders campaign has managed to gain the support of at least 40 percent of Democrats if you go by national polling.

The Real Clear Politics poll aggregator has him with an average of 42.5 percent support (Clinton +9)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls

and the pollster.com aggregator, which incorporates more polls so is better, also has with with the same level of support and down by a slightly smaller margin.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Looking at the trend-lines on both aggregators, Sanders still appears to be gaining ground on Clinton as well.

In addition to that, Sanders does better in every poll against every Republican candidate than Clinton. Many people like to dismiss this point by saying that general election polls at this point aren't very predictive (true-although it gets harder to make this point once you get into April), that Sanders hasn't faced Republican attacks that will turn people against him (somewhat true, but its highly debatable how much this will matter), and that Clinton has faced every attack the Republicans have thrown at her (untrue). Nevertheless, its hard to ignore this pattern because it occurs across all polls, lines up with other measures (favor-ability ratings), and seems to reflect some of the crossover support Sanders got in places like Michigan.

Most importantly, Sanders is getting the support of the vast majority of millennials who are voting. Considering millennials are the largest age demographic and will play an increasing roll in politics going forward, the Democrats can't afford to ignore that. If this primary were held 4 years from now, Sanders would have won Iowa, Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri, and maybe Nevada. In addition, the he would have won the states he did win by wider margins and lost the states he lost by smaller margins. If this primary were held 8 years from now, Sanders would have won handily. That is how generational changes in an electorate work. Not only does the candidate winning the larger share of younger voters gain as those voters become a bigger portion of the electorate, the candidate gaining most of his or her support from older generations loses that support as older cohorts age out of the electorate and stops voting.

Sanders won't win the primary, but he still has every reason to stay in the race to demonstrate that support. Sometimes, candidates run in elections with goals other than winning, especially primary elections. If Sanders were to drop out now, many would do what they are already doing: try to write off the platform he is running on as a flash in the pan that won't amount to anything. To prevent that, I hope Sanders does what he appears to be doing: consolidating his support in the hopes of fighting for the Democratic Party to represent at least some of what he wants at the convention. Considering Democrats will need Sanders supporters to vote for them during the 2016-2024 period, that is only fair. That is how primaries and political conventions work.

Thank you for the enlightening post.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

By definition, younger people are the future because they tend to get older. Also, based on actual votes cast, Sanders won the vast majority of millennials. The numbers aren't even close. After Super Tuesday II, he won more votes from millennials than Clinton and Trump combined. No inferences are required to draw that conclusion. I imagine that trend continued through the primaries and caucuses of the past week. He probably won the votes of people under 40 as well.

As for why, just look at that thread about younger people being priced out of starting families. Student loan debt and higher education costs are an issues millennials face that older boomers and even older members of generation X did not. Sky high housing costs in many areas also are something that didn't really become an issue until the early 2000's, so again that is an issue that older members of gen X and boomers did not face. Health care costs continue to rise as well.

Add all of that to the fact that wages have remained stagnant since basically the 70's, infrastructure continues to deteriorate to the point problems are becoming obvious, and the memories of millennials are filled with foreign policy and domestic policy failures involving establishment figures from both parties, and it is easy to see why that generation is attracted to a candidate perceived as an outsider who addresses those concerns.

My point is that any politician who decided to address millennial concerns was going to do well with that age group.

Well your point is incorrect. Hillary is also trying to lower college tuition and student debt repayment. Yet Millenials don't bite. Does that not affect them? Does Childcare and pre K education sound like something to help build families? Or does a higher minimum wage sound like it helps stagnant wages? Why no millennials biting. Those are the problems affecting them you specifically mentioned.

Honestly it's just stupid to base a campaign around the people least likely to vote. Why... because they aren't likely to vote for you.

False. Everything you said.

Hillary has moved considerably to the left in plenty of issues thanks to the pressure of Sanders. No wonder Hillary copying Sanders is a meme.

Her lead is nothing impressive. This primary will probably end as the third most contested primary since the 70s, and the most contested one in decades where the full support of the establishment was behind one candidate (and that candidate being one of the most powerful political figures of her generation). What Bernie has done is nothing short of extraordinary

Name one instance of her moving to the left because of Bernie. I double dare you to.

If losing before halfway through the race is extraordinary for you sure why not. Sounds piss poor to me.

 

[Valhelm]

Bernie apparently also picked up the Portland Association of Birds Union today.

he's literally endorsed by god

 

[Indicate]

he's literally endorsed by god

Yep

Lil B (Based God) took that endorsement back, and in a series of passionate tweets, he publicly endorsed Bernie Sanders, saying, "As much as I want to a woman leading the USA, right now it's all about Bernie ... he's the real he loves us."

Hello, mortal. I am the LORD.
I created the Universe and I created you. I also created a Facebook page with over 2.3 million fans: https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove/
Like most of you, I have looked upon this presidential season with great amusement and horror. However, there is one human running for president that is bursting with integrity, character, intelligence and judgment. That human is named Bernie Sanders.
You may now ask Me anything. For example, you could ask about why I, the LORD thy God, have officially endorsed Bernie Sanders. Or you could ask any other questions you have about this election cycle. Of course, you COULD ask about the damn platypus again (I did say anything) but let's try to keep it related to politics. Don't make Me smitey.

 

[sphagnum]

Well your point is incorrect. Hillary is also trying to lower college tuition and student debt repayment. Yet Millenials don't bite. Does that not affect them? Does Childcare and pre K education sound like something to help build families? Or does a higher minimum wage sound like it helps stagnant wages? Why no millennials biting. Those are the problems affecting them you specifically mentioned.

Why would they support someone in favor of lowering college tuition vs. someone who wants to make college free? Regardless of whether it's possible or not, if you start with the grand idea and whittle it down from there rather than start with the already whittled down idea and whittle it down further, you stand to get something closer to what you want.

Name one instance of her moving to the left because of Bernie. I double dare you to.

Does anyone honestly believe she would go around calling herself a progressive (when she has previously "admitted" to being a moderate) or talking about intersectionality if it wasn't to try to gain ground with Sanders supporters?

 

[Armaros]

Why would they support someone in favor of lowering college tuition vs. someone who wants to make college free? Regardless of whether it's possible or not, if you start with the grand idea and whittle it down from there rather than start with the already whittled down idea and whittle it down further, you stand to get something closer to what you want.



Does anyone honestly believe she would go around calling herself a progressive (when she has previously "admitted" to being a moderate) or talking about intersectionality if it wasn't to try to gain ground with Sanders supporters?

If that is all you can say about pushing her left.

Then Bernie has done a piss poor job of anything this campaign.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Does anyone honestly believe she would go around calling herself a progressive (when she has previously "admitted" to being a moderate) or talking about intersectionality if it wasn't to try to gain ground with Sanders supporters?

Yes. Are we seriously going to credit Sanders with her stances on issues that affect minorities.

I love this idea that Clinton is some amorphous candidate and everything she is is because Sanders heroically ran against her.

 

[sphagnum]

If that is all you can say about pushing her left.

Then Bernie has done a piss poor job of anything this campaign.

I don't really disagree, but he only asked for one thing.

I had hoped that Bernie would be able to pull Hillary more left, but he hasn't, and I would say that that's more of a problem with her than him. His problem is with his inability to campaign very well outside of demographics or areas that he's comfortable with. However, I'm still very happy that he ran/is running simply for what he is doing in terms of bringing socialism (even if it's not really socialism) into the mainstream.

Yes. Are we seriously going to credit Sanders with her stances on issues that affect minorities.

I love this idea that Clinton is some amorphous candidate and everything she is is because Sanders heroically ran against her.

I'm not saying that Hillary started believing in intersectional ideas because of Bernie, I said she started talking about the concept, and that's very obviously because she has an opponent that attracts a more left wing audience so she needs to counter by showing her lefty cred. Particularly if she can do it in a way that undercuts him.

Also she is amorphous. Both she and Bill like to triangulate. That's not really something contentious.

 

[HK-47]

She started talking about that because she wants the Obama coalition and because its all over people minds since Ferguson. Hell Bernie still cant force himself out of looking at it only from a economic standpoint, which isnt really an intersectional view.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Why would they support someone in favor of lowering college tuition vs. someone who wants to make college free? Regardless of whether it's possible or not, if you start with the grand idea and whittle it down from there rather than start with the already whittled down idea and whittle it down further, you stand to get something closer to what you want.



Does anyone honestly believe she would go around calling herself a progressive (when she has previously "admitted" to being a moderate) or talking about intersectionality if it wasn't to try to gain ground with Sanders supporters?

For one Bernie isn't going to make college free. He's going to make college TUITION free. That is only a portion of the cost. I payed more in books than tuition in my time at college. So your whole thing is really cheaper college vs cheaper college. Not nearly the huge dichotomy you make it seem.

I'm going to ask you provide valid data about your assertions about negotiations. I don't believe them to be proven.

Hillary is progressive to people who aren't up on their high moral horses so far to the left. Do a Google search and adjust your date to 2000 to 2014. Or you can take this link from 2007 from the horses mouth instead of doing your own research. Either way your assertion is patently false.

P.S. Bernie's crowd isn't very colorful. She wouldn't need the intersectional label to steal his supporters.