Monday, March 7, 2016

Why Bernie Sanders Won Super Tuesday

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Rick Wilking/Reuters)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Rick Wilking/Reuters)
By Cenk Uygur, Reader Supported News
06 March 16
ernie won Super Tuesday! Let me explain why.

Going into tonight it was unclear what was going to happen because the polling was so shoddy in some states, especially Colorado and Minnesota. Those two states are so important because of what they mean for the future.

It turns out that Hillary Clinton won all of the states she was supposed to win -- and a narrow victory in Massachusetts (remember she won Mass. by 15 points against Obama and still lost the primary in 2008). But Bernie Sanders had resounding wins in CO & MN. Those two states are much more indicative of the states that are coming in the rest of the primary schedule.

All of these Southern states were Hillary Clinton's best states (by the way, also irrelevant places to have strength in for the general election). She's used up most of her ammo and doesn't even know what kind of trouble she's in. Right before the voting, she pivoted toward the right again in anticipation of the general election. Big mistake. She can't help herself; she lives and breaths arrogance.

Tonight could have been the knock out punch if Clinton had won CO & MN. But she didn't! She lost them big. Now, he has a $40 million war chest and favorable map in front of him. Feel the Bern!

Time is on Bernie's side. The more he runs, the more people find out about him. Everyone already knows Clinton. She's gaining no new voters. Every day he gains ground. So, now he lives to fight many other days. She is in a race against time and she didn't close the door tonight. Tick, tock. Tick, tock!

March 8th is huge because whoever wins Michigan has momentum going into March 15th -- the real Super Tuesday (FL, OH, IL, NC and MO). That's Colossal Tuesday. And maybe the Ides of March for Hillary Clinton.

+35 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-06 15:59

Glen Ford, in a Black Agenda Report on TRNN:

"A new Reuters poll ... shows Bernie Sanders 6 points ahead in popularity among Democrats. And two other polls show Sanders 2 points ahead of Hillary Clinton."

Hillary Clinton did amass wide-margins of victory throughout most of the south, minus Oklahoma -- and now Louisiana.

However, if one extrapolates from polling showing Sanders leading nationally by 2 or 6 points:

Every "wide-margin" of victory for Hillary Clinton -- applied to individual states that have already concluded Primary Elections or Caucuses -- disproportionally decreases Clintons' national pool against national totals for Sanders, which are disproportionally improved, nationally, because Hillary Clinton's support-strength is isolated to the South.

If Sanders is leading nationally, losing the South -- especially by large margins -- is actually a statistically good indicator for Sanders; remaining distributions of voters should be greater for Sanders, nationally, than for Clinton, thereby improving Sanders remaining state-by-state opportunities.

Advantage Sanders?
+15 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-06 16:18
TYT: Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola:

March 5th, 2016 -- election-night coverage.

Interesting discussion...

Somewhere in that election-night discussion was a good segment on Superdelegates.

That discussion needs to continue.
+8 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-06 16:30
TYT: "Why President Obama Is Supporting Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders"
-8 # rradiof 2016-03-06 23:34
John Wilkes Booth/Hillary Rodhan Clinton?
+37 # rayrocketship 2016-03-06 20:53
Hillary winning all these southern states on super Tuesday does not mean much; any democrat is not going to win those states and the electoral votes anyway.

The important states to win are the purple ones, like Colorado, and Bernie won that one. Going to show his ability to win in November if he gets more purple ones.
-44 # Sheila E 2016-03-07 00:47
Hills will win plenty of blue states. The ones with more diverse populations anyway, like California (lots of delegates). Also Florida has a lot of delegates. Bern can't win unless the state is as white as long grain rice.
-59 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-06 22:41
I have NO idea who will win MI, beyond. But in tonight's debate Sen Sanders seemed stressed, hostile, almost a little desperate. Sec. Clinton seemed so confident as to be actually holding back. Reminding AAs of the 1990s may not be the best strategy for BS; it was probably the best economic decade in history for black Americans in general. Also, some benefits from the Civil Rights Movement, Era, were consolidated in the 1990s. We may know a LOT more Tues.
+32 # fletch1165 2016-03-07 00:06
She looked tired and defeated to me. Confident? No way. You watched a different speech tonight than I did then.
-16 # ericlipps 2016-03-07 05:38
Quoting fletch1165:
She looked tired and defeated to me. Confident? No way. You watched a different speech tonight than I did then.
Wishful thinking?
+54 # RMF 2016-03-07 00:17
The Clintons' 1990s are important because of, among others, these notable policy initiatives:

1. Welfare reform
2. Bankruptcy reform
3. Criminal sentencing reform
3. Glass-Steagall repeal
5. Financial derivatives deregulation

As Bernie in tonight's debate clearly and eloquently pointed out these policy actions do not exist in a vacuum -- they have implications through time, and in that respect have a direct causal link with the ensuing social stress, financial catastrophe, and declining economic status of the working class. As they say, it's not rocket science, and anyone can connect these dots, including the voters. And the voters' growing awareness of Bernie's dedicated fight against these unwise and greedy policies will prove to be his greatest strength
in the coming primaries.
-34 # Sheila E 2016-03-07 00:51
Wait, was Hillary preznit back then? I seem to remember her as a senator and SOS. Some bunny oughtta tell her she can't run again if she was already preznit.
+36 # Billsy 2016-03-07 02:38
Hillary's advisors are the same ones used by her husband including his and Obama's economic team. Same wall st chums and foreign policy Warhawks.
+15 # backwards_cinderella 2016-03-07 04:52
Well we can see the outcome right here with your uneducated remark. The total collapse of the educational system. Cute works on the street but that's the only place.
+15 # fletch1165 2016-03-07 00:17
Yeah but that was when we had cheap access to oil. Those days are long gone. Our economy right now is oil based you know? And the War in the Balkans set the stage for Bush and his antics really. It was another bad war. They ended up doing an air campaign bombing the same people the Luftwaffe bombed, our allies, to get at the thugs. But in the end they just surrounded Garajda and Shrevenitza and allowed the ethnic cleansing to go unabated. It wasn't until well after that Milosovich and Arkan's Tigers were held accountable.

And their Secretary of State, madeleine Albright starved 500,000 children to death during the Iraqi sanctions between Gulf War I and II. Later she said "It was worth it." Those are your 90's. African Americans can understand facts as well as anyone. Sure it was peachier for us back then too when the oil was flowing cheap and easy to find. ITS GONE NOW. Why do you think WAR runs the economy now almost solely?
+14 # dkent600 2016-03-07 07:11
Wow, dunno what you were watching. I thought Sanders looked more rested than in a while, and was really on point (though the gun control bits were murky, on both sides).

I thought Clinton seemed the most off I have *ever* seen her.
+1 # janla 2016-03-07 13:02
She began every response or statement with a "well,' which is a pause creator, rather than jumping right in with her response -
+62 # grandlakeguy 2016-03-06 23:00
If the media had given Bernie one tenth as much coverage as Trump or half of what Hillary Clinton received he would be so far ahead that everyone would already agree that he will be the nominee.
I totally agree that the more that people learn about him the more voters flock to his side.
Bernie can and WILL win!
+13 # Jim Rocket 2016-03-07 09:03
That is huge. It would seem to me that an old socialist drawing tens of thousands of people would be news and that Donald Trump is an off the chain a-hole is not news. The MSM and the Democratic Party have done everything they can to stifle him. It's very impressive he's doing as well as he is. I hope that stifling doesn't turn out to be a huge strategic mistake in the general election.

No comments: