Why the attacks on Bernie aren’t working
Confusion reigns in the Clinton camp after Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary in New Hampshire, 60% to 38%.
I watched Hillary Clinton’s concession speech and it was frankly embarrassing. It was rambling and directionless. I had to remind myself I was looking at a Presidential aspirant.
The Clinton attacks on Sanders are a case study in how not to do it. So far, they have all helped Bernie.
Bill Clinton claimed on Sunday that Sander’s advocacy of universal health care and free education was unrealistic. This only invited more interest in these popular Sanders’ policies.
In the same speech Bill Clinton hammered some of Sanders’ on-line supporters for sexist remarks about Hillary. Sanders rightly distanced himself from any such comments. But rather than hurting Sanders campaign Clinton only drew attention to the fact that Bernie has millions of on-line supporters – some of whom will inevitably be trolls.
Then we saw Hillary Clinton on stage cheering former Secretary of State Madeline Albright for saying “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other [read, support Hillary].” Hell must now be very crowded place with all the New Hampshire women who voted by a large majority for Bernie over Hillary. Several feminists, including RoseAnn DeMoro, have explained that Sanders’ platform is more pro-women than Clinton’s.
On Monday Hillary Clinton argued that Sanders, a strong critic of big money buying elections, had indirectly received corporate financing in the past, via the Democratic Party’s main Senate campaign fundraising arm, which had itself received some Wall Street money. This was a long bow, which only drew further attention to Hillary’s corporate backers, including Goldman Sachs, who three years ago gave her $675,000 for three speeches.
Following her big defeat in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is banking on getting the lion’s share of the Black vote in South Carolina, mainly on the grounds that several prominent Black leaders have endorsed her. However, the Sanders campaign is aiming directly at Black youth who are more open to Bernie’s radical message than their elders. The Clinton camp may be in for another big surprise.
Two little words help explain why Hillary is now unlikely to win the Democratic Party’s nomination. Her speech to supporters after the New Hampshire result was an “I” speech. Bernie’s was a “we” speech. Bernie invites people to join his movement for change, his “political revolution”. Hillary invites Americans to trust her, and they are not of a mind to trust a member of the establishment.
Election 2016 New Hampshire Primaries
Republicans -Vote-Percent-Del-(100% vote count)
Trump-100,406-35.3-10
Kasich-44,909-15.8-4
Cruz-33,189-11.7 -3
Bush-31,310-11.0 -3
Rubio-30,032-10.6-3
Christie-21,069-7.4-0
Fiorina-11,706-4.1-0
Carson-6,509-2.3 -0
Democrats-Votes-Percent-Del-(100%)
Sanders-151,584-60.4-15
Clinton-95,252-38.0-9
———–
Watch the amazing outpouring of love, joy and genuine support for Bernie Sanders here.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/09/bernies_final_nh_rally_turns_into_a_music_festival.html#sthash.mUvgbe1J.dpuf
————-
Bernie Sanders delivers his victory speech after winning the New Hampshire primary.
“What happened here in New Hampshire in terms of an enthusiastic electorate, people who came out in large numbers,” Sanders said. “That is what will happen all over this country.”
“Tonight we serve notice to the political and economic establishment of this country that the American people will not continue to accept a corrupt campaign finance system that is undermining American democracy, and we will not accept a rigged economy where ordinary Americans work longer hours for lower wages while almost all new income and wealth goes to the top 1%.”
Full speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mPrnEcVjf4
————–
Great news!!! +100
I prefer Sanders to Clinton, but the Democrat’s primary system gives a heavy weighting to the establishment candidate. The best NZ analogue I’ve thought of is; how Labour’s leader is 40% selected by the caucus (with another 20% from unions and only 40% from general members), though that’s only about 20% by elected reps & party officials with the USA Democrats. This is from a comment I made on TS OM yesterday (with maths typo corrected):
While trying to understand the candidate selection process (mainly how NH is called the first primary when it is preceded by the Iowa caucus), my surfing drifted into superdelegate territory. Wikipedia is a bit out of date with all 2008 details (because the 2012 was uncontested, and 2016 hasn’t happened yet):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008
This 538 piece is good, but deals more with present endorsements than the role of these elected endorsers as superdelegates in the convention.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
The weighting system obscures things a bit for this purpose, but I make Clinton’s; 14 Governors plus 39 Senators plus 131 congress reps to be equal to 184 delegate votes to Sanders’ 2. If it is correct that; “Each of the superdelegates’ votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters [in 2008]”, this means that Sanders is about 182 000 votes behind Clinton. With Iowa effectively tied, Sanders “yuge” win in NH is likely to get him a margin of around 50 000 votes ahead [56332 margin in NH minus delegate proportion from Iowa]. A quarter of what is needed to start on level footing with Clinton. And that’s before factoring in the half of superdelegates who are appointed by virtue of their DNC position, or those elected reps who haven’t declared yet.
Super delegates can change their declarations, it all depends on who is in the lead and how far the other candidate is behind. Hillary Clinton, if she does well in a few Southern states could keep a lead to start with, but when she leaves them, her campaign could stall. If Bernie Sanders can either win the Southern states barely or suffer minor losses, then he could go on and win the primaries. Super delegates have picked Hillary Clinton early, but they could always change their minds several months from now.
‘Bernie invites people to join his movement for change’
Ah, yes, Obama’s ‘hope and change’ all over again.
And people will fall for it yet again.
It works on the masses every time -they continue to hang on to the naïve belief that ‘if only we can the right person into power things can change for the better’.
Neuro-linguistic programming works well in NZ too.
Politically, nothing will change until people stop voting for established parties. And most would never think of doing that.
Expect more of the same until the global economic system collapses and the world goes up in smoke.
Lets just hope the political criminals do not rig the election and get their Madam Clinton to continue the Wall St. elitist — NWO corporate junkies
trainwreck. She will say and do anything to get the nomination and, as with Obama, renig on most of her promises. Wish we had someone here in NZ more like Bernie. No wonder the younger folks support him. He is for the people and not the corporations and bankster crims. Since I am a dual citizen, he has my vote. Go Bernie ! ! ! !
Obama was on a back foot because the Republicans have the majority in the house. Isn’t it?
Bernie Sanders is awesome, and he is someone who is standing up for the average person and the American people really, really need that right now.
Of course, given the chance, Trump, the Republicans, Clinton and her lot would definitely rig the election. Look at their mate John key, he rigged elections here.
You say “Confusion reigns in the Clinton camp after Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary in New Hampshire, 60% to 38%.”
Interestingly, confusion also reigns in the Republican camp re Trump’s victory :
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-decisive-trump-victory-sends-gop-establishment-reeling/article/2582918
—–
Assuming that Bernie will beat Hillary and ultimately becomes the President, I think he will have a real tough time to fulfill his policies and aspirations against the powerful capitalist/corporate class unless the country also provides him with a majority of lawmakers. Isn’t it?
My concern is what happened in to George McGovern in 1972, an almost forgotten presidential candidate who was a genuine liberal and promised to get the United States out of Vietnam within months if elected President. Instead Richard Nixon won 49 of the 50 states. Times may have changed but have they changed enough for Sanders to become president?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
Watch Bernie Sanders recent vote together ad and you can see the distinct difference in campaign styles between him and other candidates. Bernie Sanders revolution belongs to the people wheras Clinton seems to be in it only for the personal glory, and the money of course.
http://youtu.be/ptJf3ju3X1g
Top 10 Reasons Why Bernie Sanders May Actually Become President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLA6WdYzQwg
To add to your article:
Re: Bernie Bros/ Trolls – they were only able to give 1 example of this & he was a teaparty-er – ie bullshit
Re: Madeleine Albright – the easy answer – Magaret Thatcher. (there has been an interesting group of old time feminists for Hillary who are not endearing themselves with the internet generation!).
Re: Bernie’s Wall St money – he got money from the Dem Party coffers, who may have got some donations from there – PERSONALLY charged these bank groups for speeches she’s refused to release the texts for.
Poor Hillary’s problem (and these top level supporters) is she just doesn’t understand Gen Y – our liberal politicians could do well to take note.
NOTE: I’ve no idea who’ll make it in the end but there certainly is a change in the air…