Bernie did out-raise Hillary, but of course what you conveniently left out was that his money mostly comes from small donors while her's come from wealthy ones. Also, the fact that he has piles of money is not going against his rhetoric somehow, it's who gives you the money that matters.
Doesn't matter. Donations to official campaigns are capped at $2700, rich or poor. Ground game is performed by the official campaign, not by super PAC. Distinguishing the source of the wealth doesn't change the fact that both official campaigns are "built on piles of money", and also doesn't change the fact that Hillary's campaign is superior not because of money, but because of organization. You said so yourself.
I'll agree with you there, Bernie's campaign has not been nearly as well run as Hillary's. I chalk it up to his inexperience as a national candidate more than a problem with his message though.
I don't agree that Bernie's campaign is not as well run because of his inexperience as a national candidate, but rather because his choice of staff is poor. Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine were too overconfident and didn't have a contingent strategy in case of a Nevada loss. I think they're also selling to Bernie lies about the man's chances, if Bernie is really determined to run this until June.
This simply isn't true. He has been actively campaigning on civil rights issues since the BLM fiasco. He also may have won the Latino vote in Nevada by some estimates. He hasn't written minorities off at all, you just wish he did so you can criticize him on it.
According to his campaign's ad buys for Super Tuesday, Bernie's campaign has essentially given up on the southern states. I gave you all the evidence right there that his campaign has essentially given up on the minority vote, and is targeting heavily white states.
It's not a matter of whether he has been actively campaigning on civil rights issues. It's looking at what his campaign is doing to prep for future contests and analyzing such actions. Bernie can continue to campaign on those issues, but the actions of his campaign indicate their focus on winning states that don't have as many minorities. That's their apparent strategy.
You're ignoring intangibles. All the Democratic elites and major donors have been campaigning against Sanders as soon as he started to creep up on Hillary's lead. This is the power of moneyed interests, they provide a massive amount of leverage and influence to a candidate before they even begin to look at how they will run their campaign. Sanders, his own blunders aside, has been fighting an uphill battle the entire time. Yet you're acting like this was his election to lose. You're boasting of Hillary's campaign as if it is something to be proud of, when, in reality, it's just a display of the power of money in politics.
And it's not that she's some evil dictator, she's just playing by the rules of a corrupt game. I'll certainly support her in the general when she's the candidate, but I'll vote against corrupt influence in politics if I have the chance, which I do with Sanders.
When it comes to the vote, ground game is king.
People would like to blame moneyed interests, 'establishment', media, everything except themselves. But for all of that, her campaign just plain had a better grasp of the game and the ground than Bernie's campaign did. Hillary did more prep work. What you're seeing come home to roost is the effort of years. It cannot be so easily distilled into 'Democratic elites and major donors' (btw, major donors don't campaign, so I don't know where you get the idea that major donors have been campaigning against Bernie). It's like you're dismissing the vote of the people when it's on Hillary's side, but if it's on Bernie's side then it's the "real" voice of the people.
You're the one coming with feelings now. Based upon the logic you just put forth, no candidate would ever win unless he inspired his voters. You're putting forth a laughably naive and simple view of politics, all just to get in an attack on Bernie and his supporters. Makes me question your objectivity.
The last part was certainly intended to be feelings based. I am responding to a poster who specifically talked about his feelings, so in return I can tell him what he feels is incorrect. It was broad to make the assumption that people who support Hillary "don't really want things to change". My answer is, with experience, those who support Hillary understand how to better navigate the system for changes, and believe she can do better than Bernie at that.
And here we are with more feelings. You are wrong to assume that most people are supporting Bernie because they think a magical savior will come into office and wish all our problems away. Speaking for myself and other Sanders' supporters I know personally, we support him because we know he is the only candidate who is not influenced by a corrupt campaign finance system and is the only candidate who wants to honestly address income inequality and corruption in politics. These are not fringe concerns about the Illuminati running everything from behind the scenes or some nonsense like that. It is an honest assessment of our political system. And it's important because it undermines progress on important issues like climate change, gun control, healthcare, etc. You can talk about "incremental change" all you want, but you'll only ever get the progress that lobbyists and corporations allow you to have. That's simply not the way it's supposed to be.
For whatever reason, you support Hillary. And I think there are very many legitimate reasons to do so. But this post has been near cringe-inducing for all the emotional bias and obvious attempts at self-satisfying insults. The shame is you're just alienating people who mostly agree with you because you just can't seem to bring yourself to respect opinions that offend your sensibilities. I hope you change your approach in the future.
Incremental progress is better than nothing. Staying principled gets nothing done; this is no better exemplified than by the Tea Party. If you want to stand alongside them and protest your morals and principles, feel free to do so. You can talk about your personal preferences all you want, but you won't change anything. Those who drag the cart of complainers will continue to drag the cart of the complainers. They bear the burden.
My belief is that each person paves the road for the person behind to continue. I do not believe that lobbyists and corporations complete and utter control over the progress we are 'allowed'; if that were the case we could not have the progress we have today, since a divide of wealth has and will always exist. Were there not times like this in the past, where Teddy Roosevelt had to go trust busting? Did Lyndon Johnson not have to stand up and bully Congress into passing civil rights? Did Obama not try his hardest for the country, despite being 'paid for'? The connections of people, companies, government, and society are more complex than we can boil down to simple oligarchy. Humans are simultaneously predictable and unpredictable. I do not fear we have no voice even in the face of entities much greater than ourselves; if you want to know how it really feels, I suggest you move to China.
My post illustrated the deficiencies of the Bernie campaign and laid out the problems with his campaign's Super Tuesday strategy. If you feel that it is unfair, it's probably because you are standing on Bernie's side with a bias. An analyst looking at the spending and the poll numbers can tell you the same that I did. It's hardly filled with self-satisfying insults, other than the final part giving an assessment of Bernie supporters. Ironically this is what you say, but then you engage in subtle insults yourself, so who needs to change his approach? I wrote with respect to that guy's opinion and told him he is wrong. I could have written some highly charged insults, but I didn't. If this civil tone is considered 'insulting', then you are too thin-skinned.
Ahaha. Charity and bootstraps? What are you, a Republican?
I did say from a certain viewpoint you can see it that way, no? But here's my question for you: do you have an actual argument against what I said about Hillary's investment and hard work being so summarily dismissed?
