Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Sanders/Clinton Difference

I want to preface this again by saying I've not listened to a word either of these two people have said for the last few months.  And I also don't plan to.

What I have read the last few days is there are "voting irregularities in Arizona" and "Sanders is actually beating Clinton but the media won't tell you!"  Strange how I read that in the media.

This will be quick.

The Clinton campaign is not involved in voting irregularities in a Republican controlled state like Arizona.  The fact that polling locations were not as plentiful in no way proves Sanders would have won that state - one in which he lost by nearly 20% points.  Many of those closed polling areas were in minority and urban neighborhoods, who have shown themselves to largely be Clinton voters.  Someone suggested to me on Facebook that "Sanders voters were more likely to vote at night!"

Seriously, shut the fuck up already.  Is night-voter a new demographic?  Do you hear yourself?

This is the bottom line in all of this, and the reason Clinton is going to win:

There is a system in place; it's an imperfect system, but it's one Hillary Clinton understands.  It's one controlled by elected state officials like governors and others.  Just like you saw in Florida during Gore v Bush.  The states control the elections at all levels.  Clinton is more likely to receive support from these election officials after having spent YEARS engaged with these people.  That's the system.  Politics is real.  There has been a lot of horse-trading going on well before you "felt the Bern."

It wasn't the cause of any problems in Arizona because the Republican governor is in no way helping Clinton, or anyone likely to vote for her.  But it is a hurdle someone like Sanders would need to overcome.  It's going to be no different for Trump in Republican states that don't want to see him win.
All told, Clinton spent years battling on the front lines, and in return she receives the preferential treatment of all the statewide politicians who support her.  Senator Sanders was mostly in Vermont, or speaking to a largely empty chamber in the Senate.  She was on the front lines; he was not.

That's the difference in why she'll be the candidate.

I appreciate the support for Sanders, and the excitement behind him.  It has been borne out of Gore v Bush and countless other issues.  But it doesn't upend an entire system.  That takes years of fighting; battling.  The years Hillary Clinton already put in.

When Sanders loses we'll see how many of you pack up and quit.  Say things like "the system is rigged!"

Thing is, Hillary Clinton will still be fighting when you've stopped.

1 comment:

  1. exit polling has shown minorty voters are voting for Sanders (yes, I know HRC has nothing to do with polling places , and this will hurt a Democrat in the national election, but the narrative by the media is that minorities do not connect with Sanders, even though he won Hawaii (the most ethnically diverse state in the union). Hispanics under 35 are overwhelmingly for Sanders, and HRC has a slight edge in Hispanics over that age. The black vote is largely Hillary's (a tribute more to Bill, but hey it works), although again, with younger voters, Bernie beats her again. The media has done alot to marginalize Bernie. That is a fact. The elite at the top there is little difference whether you are blue or red, and that is HRC's constituency.