I don't like how bernie brushes aside the south

[ProgressiveCanadian]

White progressives love to let everyone know they're so much better than everyone, and that if you have a different opinion, you're clearly wrong. It was like this with rural whites who vote Republican and now it's African-Americans who vote for Clinton. So if anything, this primary has really exposed their sh**tty elitist attitude.

We sure know how to have conversations about things that actually matter.

Hmmmm....

[Holmes]

Yes, let's have a conversation about how a progressive movement in the United States is DOA without help of African-Americans, latinos, and other non-whites. If you want to know why Democrats are a non-entity in so many areas of the country (even conservadems), attitude plays a big part .

[Joe Republic]

I don't like it, but I also don't dislike disregarding the caucus states.

Caucuses are exercises in voter suppression. That's what's being criticized, not the fact that they voted for Sanders. 

And, of course, people only started complaining about them after he starting scoring massive victories there. Not a peep after Iowa and Nevada. Nothing suspicious about that.

Don't be disingenuous. People were complaining even back in 2008. And they sure as hell complained after this year's Iowa debacle.

I'm guessing that if Clinton won the caucus states by the same margins Sanders did, it would be Sanders supporters railing against caucuses, and Clinton supporters defending them while accusing Sanders supporters of brushing aside those states. I won't deny that there are inherent problems with caucuses, but disregarding the votes that were cast is hardly better than disregarding the Southern contests. Every vote and state should matter.

I'll stop you there.  The complaints about caucuses from all parts of the Democratic Party have been widespread since Iowa.  And that's just this cycle, in which the democratic process is something people seem to care a lot more about.

Speaking for myself as a voter in the second caucuses of the campaign, I spoke with several other voters mainly from the Hillary side, naturally, and the unanimous view was that caucuses are terrible.

[izixs]

I don't like it, but I also don't dislike disregarding the caucus states.

Caucuses are exercises in voter suppression. That's what's being criticized, not the fact that they voted for Sanders. 

And, of course, people only started complaining about them after he starting scoring massive victories there. Not a peep after Iowa and Nevada. Nothing suspicious about that.

Don't be disingenuous. People were complaining even back in 2008. And they sure as hell complained after this year's Iowa debacle.

I'm guessing that if Clinton won the caucus states by the same margins Sanders did, it would be Sanders supporters railing against caucuses, and Clinton supporters defending them while accusing Sanders supporters of brushing aside those states. I won't deny that there are inherent problems with caucuses, but disregarding the votes that were cast is hardly better than disregarding the Southern contests. Every vote and state should matter.

I'll stop you there.  The complaints about caucuses from all parts of the Democratic Party have been widespread since Iowa.  And that's just this cycle, in which the democratic process is something people seem to care a lot more about.

Speaking for myself as a voter in the second caucuses of the campaign, I spoke with several other voters mainly from the Hillary side, naturally, and the unanimous view was that caucuses are terrible.

This. And what more, I'm getting rather tired of folks effectively putting words in our mouths on these subjects. I've been anti-caucus since 2004 when I participated in them in Iowa. It was a mess, it was silly, and it was very undemocratic. This is still true today. Sure I'm happy my candidate is winning states, but I'd be happier if they were using primaries in every state and he was still winning them.

If all states used a primary voting system, we'd not be talking about primaries vs caucuses naturally. We'd be focusing entirely on a mix of demographics and geography to explain the strengths of the candidates. To me, this is a much more interesting conversation. And it seems like Sanders' observation is him participating in that conversation, not this silly primary vs caucus thing. The south is Clinton's geographical base independent of race (though her strength with African Americans contribute to that). The northern edges of the country seem to be Sanders' base. If the calendar had been reversed for the contests thus far, folks from the Clinton side would probably have been pointing out over and over again how Sanders has a geographical base and for folks to wait until good states for Clinton came around before deciding that the nomination was over.

But tis silly season. Everything has to be the end of the world. Everything has to be an insult. No one is allowed to think clearly nor consider how they might react if things were just a little different.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yes, let's have a conversation about how a progressive movement in the United States is DOA without help of African-Americans, latinos, and other non-whites. If you want to know why Democrats are a non-entity in so many areas of the country (even conservadems), attitude plays a big part .

I'd hardly call the Sanders campaign showing an "elitist" attitude. Sanders is loved by most Democrats including African Americans and Latinos.

[Mercenary]

Yeah Ive started to dislike him. I used to by far prefer him but between things like this and his lack of knowledge.on any kind of detailed policy makes me prefer Clinton.

[White Trash]

Partially the reason I voted for Hillary in the primary. She at least visited my state.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

One must go hunting where the ducks are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Partially the reason I voted for Hillary in the primary. She at least visited my state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_pN5Poego

[Landslide Lyndon]

Consider the contrast between Sanders and Obama. In 2008 Obama visited and held events even in states where he knew he was about to be crushed (West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma).
Sanders OTOH didn't even bother to show up in most states and now he tries to somehow turn that into a plus by dismissing them as irrelevant. It's a nifty trick as long as you are dumb enough to fall for it.

[NHI]

I agree

[Figueira]

Yeah, I have to agree with this criticism of Sanders and some of his supporters.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't agree with this talking point. I disagree with the choice Southern voters made, but they votes counts as much as other part of the country.

[Xing]

I think many of you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not here to argue that caucuses are the best thing since sliced bread. I'm arguing that some Clinton supporters are only now dismissing caucus states, particularly those who describe them as mostly white (AK, CO & HI???) I think that both sides are found of making "excuses" for why the states their candidate lost aren't important. (The Deep South is conservative, those mostly white caucus states, NH is an almost home state, etc.) Let's not disregard any of the votes that have been cast. Is that such an offensive idea?

[Mehmentum]

It reminds me of right wing 'Real America' talking points.

[Shadows]

MSNBC Data on Blue States - http://i.imgur.com/ee7YKw5.jpg

Sanders - 665
Clinton - 663

Sanders is leading 2 Delegates here! The deep red conservative states gave Clinton most part of her 200 Delegate lead - That is not to say she did not win Blue or Purple states because she did - But we would be having a very competitive nail-biter if not for the deep South

[Landslide Lyndon]

It reminds me of right wing 'Real America' talking points.

Demagogues use the same talking points, regardless of ideology.
It's always "us vs. them".

[Virginiá]

MSNBC Data on Blue States - http://i.imgur.com/ee7YKw5.jpg

Sanders - 665
Clinton - 663

Sanders is leading 2 Delegates here! The deep red conservative states gave Clinton most part of her 200 Delegate lead - That is not to say she did not win Blue or Purple states because she did - But we would be having a very competitive nail-biter if not for the deep South

What exactly are you implying then? Obviously you're implying something or else you wouldn't have posted this because it's pretty pointless. The South is an equal part of this country, with lots of citizens and Democrats.

[emailking]

MSNBC Data on Blue States - http://i.imgur.com/ee7YKw5.jpg

Sanders - 665
Clinton - 663

Sanders is leading 2 Delegates here! The deep red conservative states gave Clinton most part of her 200 Delegate lead - That is not to say she did not win Blue or Purple states because she did - But we would be having a very competitive nail-biter if not for the deep South

That assumes she wouldn't put more money and effort into doing better in the non-deep South if it didn't exist or was otherwise irrelevant somehow, but ok fine. Let's say you can just subtract out delegates from the deep south. What does it matter? The deep south really is there and the delegates she won there really do count. It's interesting to know where the candidates' regional support is, but why do you keep hammering this point home like it is more significant than just that?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Remember when ProgressiveCanadian said he'd get better and everyone was just like "OK! FF now!"

[Krago]

White progressives love to let everyone know they're so much better than everyone, and that if you have a different opinion, you're clearly wrong. It was like this with rural whites who vote Republican and now it's African-Americans who vote for Clinton. So if anything, this primary has really exposed their sh**tty elitist attitude.

There is nothing that white liberals hate more than being called white liberals.

[RaphaelDLG]

Sanders' point still stands that the South is largely irrelevant to Democratic Party Electoral College calculus (as immoral and disenfranchising as this legal reality under that moronic/anachronistic part of the Constitution is).

Of course, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, etc ARE highly relevant... and we remember who won those states.

The comparison of Bernie to George Wallace is laughable and obviously unfair lies/crap from hillary hacks like LL as we've come to expect on here.

As a lifelong Southerner who lives in a state with a lot of cultural morons, I take no offense to his simple restating of the plain facts of Cook PVI vis a vis the 2016 Electoral College Calculus.  Winning my support matters less than winning the support of my sister who lives in Ohio.

Of course, as I said, you can make a strong case that Hillary is BETTER suited to win in not just the South during the primaries but in a general election winner take all electoral college scenario.

The comments are not remotely racist but are disingenuous.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

[RaphaelDLG]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

Normatively, sure, I agree with you.

Logically, in the electoral college, it's not really one man one vote - the campaigns target battleground states and leaners exclusively and cater to those voters in varying degrees of importance

[Virginiá]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

Normatively, sure, I agree with you.

Logically, in the electoral college, it's not really one man one vote - the campaigns target battleground states and leaners exclusively and cater to those voters in varying degrees of importance

Hell, even if we elected purely by national popular vote, it still wouldn't change (by much) the way campaigns target specific states. Campaigns would still target areas where they get the most bang for their buck in terms of GOTV and other operations. So Wyoming, Utah, Vermont or Alabama still aren't going to get attention.

I think parties would still focus on specific states, but the states they target would change. For instance, California would become a target for Democrats to increase participation, and Texas for Republicans. Ironically, Republicans might actually push to make voting a lot easier so as to increase turnout. So there is that..