How many Clinton “firewalls” were breached in 2008 and have already been breached in 2016? This woman has had more firewalls than makeovers. In 2008 she had women, POC, Superdelegates (at least near half), near half the establishment/institutional support (including mass media and money), and gun owners and later junked POC for white folks. This time she has women, AAs, Latinos, Superdelegates (more than 90%), all the establishment/institutional support (including mass media and money), and white folks. (She junked the gun owners this time around.)
Clinton has never had “firewalls.” She has machines. Machines constructed over decades.
Bernie probably knows more about such machines than more than a few people living today. Anyone born much after 1947 hasn’t had a front row seat as to how political machines operate, and not so many of those born before personally experienced them when they were young and has continued to experience how they operate. This could explain why Bernie has exceeded the expectations of so many that have supported him. He’s been finding ways around and through the power of machines throughout his whole political career. However, so far it’s not quite enough this time.
His supporters need a crash course in the knowledge and operation of political machines if we are to have a chance of crashing through them. To fully appreciate the methods to Sanders madness and what more is needed from us.
It’s not that it has escaped the attention of his supporters that the MSM, DEM party, and Wall St. money has been fully “Ready for Hillary.” Nor that they have worked diligently to dismiss, discredit, and lie about Sanders. However, rapid response to correct the record isn’t enough.
Check it out:
Clinton received 78% of the non-first time Iowa caucus attendees. That’s roughly what Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt collectively received in 2004 and Clinton, Edwards, and Obama collectively got in 2008. We know that in 2004 that institutional/establishment vote was split between Gephardt and Edwards with a third sitting on the fence before Ted Kennedy (as a “closer”) flew in and whipped that Iowa DEM establishment. We also know that Clinton and Edwards had more of it than Obama in ’08 (hence Clinton’s shock at coming in third). (Note: SEIU was split between Edwards and Obama in ’08 As Hillary was just as “inevitable” in ’08 and if she’s so great for union members, have to wonder why SEIU didn’t at least split three ways last time around.)
With that 78% “in the bag,” Clinton’s 2016 campaign didn’t expend much in the way of retail campaign resources on Iowa. Not even Obama’s highly touted new voter outreach in ’08 could have prevailed against that 78% consolidation for Clinton. At least, and from the “paper of record,” NYTimes not until December/January when some numbers began looking unfavorable for her.
As much as 90 percent of the campaign’s resources are now split between Iowa and the Brooklyn headquarters, according to an estimate provided by a person with direct knowledge of the spending. The campaign denied that figure.
The following from the same article is more likely spin (and partisan DEMs that deny the existance of a pipeline from team Clinton to the NYTimes and WaPo are fools):
…the campaign has invested much of its resources in the Feb. 1 caucuses in Iowa, hoping that a victory there could marginalize Mr. Sanders and set Mrs. Clinton on the path to the nomination.
Ah yes, the Kerry ’04 path to the nomination. Also good BS to disseminate to the troops:
The focus on Iowa, which still haunts Mrs. Clinton after the stinging upset by Barack Obama there in 2008, has been so intense that even organizers in New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Feb. 9, have complained to the campaign’s leadership that they feel neglected.
The Democratic machine in NH isn’t as robust and entrenched as it is in Iowa, but that IA caucus win was expected to faciliate the machine and boost Clinton to a win or a very narrow loss. Somehow the faction of NH DEM voters not inclined to go along with the institutional/establishment choice swelled to 60.4%. And the “closers,” Bill, Chelsea, Albright, and Steinem, sent into NH were like what in business is known as “deal mucker uppers.” (A note: business people and politicians dependent on “closers” are second rate in their own right.)
Here’s part of the machine:
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is counting on minority voters to help her win in the South. It has assembled “leadership councils” of elected officials, party leaders and activists who have endorsed Mrs. Clinton and has held campaign events in states beyond the early four, including the delegate-rich Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and Virginia.
…
[Clinton’s campaign] is relying on union volunteers and members of supportive organizations such as Planned Parenthood to help her. …
The machine struck back in Nevada.
Casino union bosses worked over their members with assistance from Harry Reid (as good of a closer in NV as Teddy Kennedy was in Iowa ’04) and casino owners. Time off to caucus under the watchful eyes of the boss. And we’re told that the entry polls were wrong; more people really did intend to caucus for Clinton than Sanders. (Where have we heard this before?) (And that alleged dust-up about Sanders’ field campaigners posing as casino culinary workers is looking a bit more like a dirty trick by the opposition. Had the internet been around in ’72 would some of the CREEP dirty tricks been seen in real time? Of course, only those that wear properly functioning tin-foil hats would have read it correctly. Everyone else would have dismissed them as the wild imaginings of CT fools. I can report that as soon as I learned of the Watergate break-in, it was clear to me that it was a team Nixon operation. And yes, I was told that I was nuts.)
It wouldn’t be too strong for me to say that I hate the machine and all the machine movers and shakers. It also makes me sad to see so many once good people become cogs and shills for it. Maybe they always have been, but it was easier to hide in the past.
The facts at this point in the primary are technically better for Sanders than they were for Obama in ’08. Bernie may only have tied Clinton in Iowa but it was with 50% compared to Obama’s win with 37%. Obama narrowly lost to Clinton in NH, but Sanders won a landslide. In NV Sanders is at or near Obama’s performance. But for some reason, Obama was praised as a winner by the MSM and Sanders is being called a loser (right here at the Pond).
Rationally, a loss in SC should be dimissed because the state is reliably Republican in presidential elections, but it won’t be. The task for Sanders’ team is daunting because the machine is really entrenched and strong there. And African-Americans over a certain age are exceedingly forgiving of those that throw them under the bus when it serves the tosser’s personal interests.
The base DEM primary vote in SC is near 290,000. (The ’08 new voters didn’t show up in IA or NH; so, no reason to project that they will do so in SC regardless of how often Hillary repeats her newly discovered Obamaphilia.) A pessimistic projection is that Clinton gets 78% of that. So, Sanders needs to get more new voters than Obama did in ’08 which was 192,000. Roughly 220,000 would do it. (Sanders did get more new voters than Obama in both IA and NH. Not by much but a little.) That’s a huge number relative to those that vote in primaries. It’s five and a half times the size of the 2016 NH new voters. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to build such a large new primary election voter base, and unlike Obama’s ’08 team, Sanders’ teams team has to add every single one of those new voters themselves.
One other point, machines play dirty. They will lie (I’m looking at you Ms. Huerta), cheat (I’m looking at you SEIU for your flyers proclaiming that Clinton supports a $15 minimum wage), and steal. For a candidate like Sanders, it’s not just getting the new voters to the caucus and polling sites. They have to stay until they’ve cast their vote. In Iowa and Nevada, there were reports of people leaving because the lines were too long or the caucuses too crowded. And the lines in NH were also long; so, some there may have also decided to leave without voting. It’s possible that such voter discouragement (a well known tactic of political machines) cost Sanders a win in Iowa and something in Nevada.
“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious–makes you so sick at heart–that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
― Mario Savio [December 2, 1964]
Don’t know what this means for Sanders campaign, but worth repeating: Machine may still be able to win elections (by hook or by crook)..
But it can’t fix the crisis at the heart of the system. The anger will not subside, the challenges from left & right will not go away.
machine gets what it wants – it is sentient & self-perpetuating.
— Billmon – February 20, 1916
