Bernie Sanders

eridani

(51,907 posts) Sun Jul 26, 2015, 05:23 PM Jul 2015

Forget the 1%, the 99% and the 47%. 2016 is really about the 63%

That is, those eligible to vote who did not vote in 2014. Sanders is bringing them in; Clinton is not, and cannot. After 180 or so replies in the linked thread, not one Clinton supporter could specify how their candidate will appeal to the alienated non-participants--the overwhelming majority of the potential electorate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251446345

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Forget the 1%, the 99% and the 47%. 2016 is really about the 63% (Original Post) eridani Jul 2015 OP

They sure didn't udbcrzy2 Jul 2015 #1

shouldn't that be the 53%? hollysmom Jul 2015 #2

No. Ed Suspicious Jul 2015 #3

Have You Seen THIS: WillyT Jul 2015 #4

Getting out to vote can represent a nontrivial effort for the least financially secure. winter is coming Jul 2015 #6

The Establishment Democrats' remark about non-voters is that Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2015 #5

I fit the discription of born poor - still poor but I vote - have voted in every election since JFK. jwirr Jul 2015 #7

udbcrzy2

(891 posts)

1. They sure didn't

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 05:32 PM

Jul 2015

All I saw were Hillary supporters saying to prepare for her coronation, like the primaries are already over, but this has just begun and they are just now #FeelingTheBern.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)

2. shouldn't that be the 53%?

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 05:38 PM

Jul 2015

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

3. No.

Reply to hollysmom (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 05:45 PM

Jul 2015

WillyT

(72,631 posts)

4. Have You Seen THIS:

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 08:43 PM

Jul 2015

DULik: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026410677

The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.

This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.

& Rec !!!

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)

6. Getting out to vote can represent a nontrivial effort for the least financially secure.

Reply to WillyT (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 08:58 PM

Jul 2015

Transportation can be an issue, as is getting time off from work. People are less likely to make that effort for a status quo candidate.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)

5. The Establishment Democrats' remark about non-voters is that

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 08:54 PM

Jul 2015

they're stupid and/or lazy.

If you've ever been around poor people, you know that along with the knuckle-dragging right-wingers, there are some very savvy people who understand how the system works. But they don't vote because nothing has changed through numerous election cycles. No one talks about their issues. They were poor and struggling in 1990 or earlier, and they're still poor. They don't care about abortion or guns or gay rights or "a strong defense" or being "business friendly." They wonder where the good paying jobs went. They wonder why it's harder and harder to find an affordable place to live. They wonder why they work hard and still have to go to free meal programs at churches.

No, the Democrats and Republicans are most decidedly not the same, but the Democrats have not affected the poorer strata of society enough to inspire them.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)

7. I fit the discription of born poor - still poor but I vote - have voted in every election since JFK.

Reply to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 10:40 PM

Jul 2015

My reasons for voting involve my poverty but I do not vote because I think that somehow I am suddenly going to get out of poverty. (First I should be clear - one difference may be that LBJ's poverty program let me get a good education. Another is that my oldest child is severely disabled and needs Medicare/Medicaid.) So not everyone who is poor is exactly like me.

However the biggest reason I vote is because I learned long ago that there is a real difference between the two parties in how they approach the problem of poverty. The Democratic Party believes that anyone who needs help should get it - so it starts out great. They create a program. Then along comes the R and he insists that everyone is cheating. He creates more paperwork to ensure that no one can cheat. If he can he cuts the program or makes it harder to be eligible. The Democratic Party then finds ways around this obstruction and the Rs change it again. Over and over again. So I would rather deal with the Democratic Party than take my chances with the Rs.

Reply to this discussion