Decoding Super Tuesday: Why Sanders Is Still on Track to Win and Why the Democrats Need Him To
As usual, the mainstream media is confused by the results from Super Tuesday. To hear them tell it, Hillary has all but sewed up the nomination. In reality, Sanders had a good day, and Tuesday's results suggest he's set to surprise the pundits yet again.
More importantly, he's still the best candidate the Democrats can field to defeat Trump.
Here's why:
As usual, the mainstream media is confused by the results from Super Tuesday. To hear them tell it, Hillary has all but sewed up the nomination. In reality, Sanders had a good day, and Tuesday's results suggest he's set to surprise the pundits yet again.
More importantly, he's still the best candidate the Democrats can field to defeat Trump.
Here's why:
First, the States Clinton won are irrelevant when it comes to Democratic Presidential victories. The States Clinton won decisively -- Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia - have not played prominently in electing a Democratic President since Carter's victory in 1976. Bill Clinton won Arkansas and Tennessee in his races; and Obama won Virginia twice, but that's about it for Democrats in the South. Both would have won without winning these states.
Which makes a Democratic primary victory in the South about as useful as a trap door in a lifeboat when it comes to the general election.
Conversely, in States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont and Massachusetts, which have played prominently in presidential races for Democrats, Sanders won, or in the case of Massachusetts, nearly won.
Second, her huge margin in the African American Community may not persist and won't matter as much in the remaining states if it does. Clinton won in the south by trouncing Sanders among African American voters. But Clinton's record on issues that are important to Black America is atrocious, and may yet catch up to her. As Michelle Alexander points in an article in The Nation, the policies she's backed "decimated" Black America.
As Black leaders examine Hillary's past positions on crime, Black Lives Matter, welfare reform, and privatizing prisons and compare them to Sanders' there's been a steady shift from her to Bernie. Mainstream Black America may yet follow them. If that happens, Clinton would struggle in remaining states in which the African American voters are decisive.
But even if that doesn't happen, when you look at the remaining states, the demographics more closely resemble the States Sanders won, than the ones that went for Clinton, suggesting that future races will be far more competitive.
Which Brings us to Electability: Perhaps the most dangerous myth the Clinton Campaign has spread is that she is the more electable candidate.
Sanders beats all Republicans by more than Hillary does. In fact, in the latest poll, Sanders crushes both Cruz and Rubio by 17% and 8% respectively, but Clinton loses to both. Against Trump, Sanders annihilates him by 12 points while Hillary only beats him by 8.
And the thing is, Hillary has little hope of closing that gap. Beyond her current supporters, most voters distrust and dislike her. These factors make it extraordinarily difficult for her to increase support among independents - an essential group to appeal to if one is to win a national election. But more importantly, together with her record of patently untrue statements, they make it easy to undermine what support she has. Finally, these kinds of issues lead to a low turnout, something which favors Republicans.
Bottom Line: If Democrats want to win, they need to run Sanders. But the Establishment - including the moneyed interests, the media, the think tanks, many of the unions, and the Party rank and file -- are lining up behind Hillary like lemmings in front of a cliff.
If the nightmare of Trump - or Cruz or Rubio - is to be avoided, it's up to the young, the alienated and the disaffected to get out and vote for Sanders.
The alternative is a reign of hate, divisiveness, greed, jingoism, and fear.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As usual, the mainstream media is confused by the results from Super Tuesday. To hear them tell it, Hillary has all but sewed up the nomination. In reality, Sanders had a good day, and Tuesday's results suggest he's set to surprise the pundits yet again.
More importantly, he's still the best candidate the Democrats can field to defeat Trump.
Here's why:
First, the States Clinton won are irrelevant when it comes to Democratic Presidential victories. The States Clinton won decisively -- Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia - have not played prominently in electing a Democratic President since Carter's victory in 1976. Bill Clinton won Arkansas and Tennessee in his races; and Obama won Virginia twice, but that's about it for Democrats in the South. Both would have won without winning these states.
Which makes a Democratic primary victory in the South about as useful as a trap door in a lifeboat when it comes to the general election.
Conversely, in States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont and Massachusetts, which have played prominently in presidential races for Democrats, Sanders won, or in the case of Massachusetts, nearly won.
Second, her huge margin in the African American Community may not persist and won't matter as much in the remaining states if it does. Clinton won in the south by trouncing Sanders among African American voters. But Clinton's record on issues that are important to Black America is atrocious, and may yet catch up to her. As Michelle Alexander points in an article in The Nation, the policies she's backed "decimated" Black America.
As Black leaders examine Hillary's past positions on crime, Black Lives Matter, welfare reform, and privatizing prisons and compare them to Sanders' there's been a steady shift from her to Bernie. Mainstream Black America may yet follow them. If that happens, Clinton would struggle in remaining states in which the African American voters are decisive.
But even if that doesn't happen, when you look at the remaining states, the demographics more closely resemble the States Sanders won, than the ones that went for Clinton, suggesting that future races will be far more competitive.
Which Brings us to Electability: Perhaps the most dangerous myth the Clinton Campaign has spread is that she is the more electable candidate.
Sanders beats all Republicans by more than Hillary does. In fact, in the latest poll, Sanders crushes both Cruz and Rubio by 17% and 8% respectively, but Clinton loses to both. Against Trump, Sanders annihilates him by 12 points while Hillary only beats him by 8.
And the thing is, Hillary has little hope of closing that gap. Beyond her current supporters, most voters distrust and dislike her. These factors make it extraordinarily difficult for her to increase support among independents - an essential group to appeal to if one is to win a national election. But more importantly, together with her record of patently untrue statements, they make it easy to undermine what support she has. Finally, these kinds of issues lead to a low turnout, something which favors Republicans.
Bottom Line: If Democrats want to win, they need to run Sanders. But the Establishment - including the moneyed interests, the media, the think tanks, many of the unions, and the Party rank and file -- are lining up behind Hillary like lemmings in front of a cliff.
If the nightmare of Trump - or Cruz or Rubio - is to be avoided, it's up to the young, the alienated and the disaffected to get out and vote for Sanders.
The alternative is a reign of hate, divisiveness, greed, jingoism, and fear.
As usual, the mainstream media is confused by the results from Super Tuesday. To hear them tell it, Hillary has all but sewed up the nomination. In reality, Sanders had a good day, and Tuesday's results suggest he's set to surprise the pundits yet again.
More importantly, he's still the best candidate the Democrats can field to defeat Trump.
Here's why:
First, the States Clinton won are irrelevant when it comes to Democratic Presidential victories. The States Clinton won decisively -- Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia - have not played prominently in electing a Democratic President since Carter's victory in 1976. Bill Clinton won Arkansas and Tennessee in his races; and Obama won Virginia twice, but that's about it for Democrats in the South. Both would have won without winning these states.
Which makes a Democratic primary victory in the South about as useful as a trap door in a lifeboat when it comes to the general election.
Conversely, in States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont and Massachusetts, which have played prominently in presidential races for Democrats, Sanders won, or in the case of Massachusetts, nearly won.
Second, her huge margin in the African American Community may not persist and won't matter as much in the remaining states if it does. Clinton won in the south by trouncing Sanders among African American voters. But Clinton's record on issues that are important to Black America is atrocious, and may yet catch up to her. As Michelle Alexander points in an article in The Nation, the policies she's backed "decimated" Black America.
As Black leaders examine Hillary's past positions on crime, Black Lives Matter, welfare reform, and privatizing prisons and compare them to Sanders' there's been a steady shift from her to Bernie. Mainstream Black America may yet follow them. If that happens, Clinton would struggle in remaining states in which the African American voters are decisive.
But even if that doesn't happen, when you look at the remaining states, the demographics more closely resemble the States Sanders won, than the ones that went for Clinton, suggesting that future races will be far more competitive.
Which Brings us to Electability: Perhaps the most dangerous myth the Clinton Campaign has spread is that she is the more electable candidate.
Sanders beats all Republicans by more than Hillary does. In fact, in the latest poll, Sanders crushes both Cruz and Rubio by 17% and 8% respectively, but Clinton loses to both. Against Trump, Sanders annihilates him by 12 points while Hillary only beats him by 8.
And the thing is, Hillary has little hope of closing that gap. Beyond her current supporters, most voters distrust and dislike her. These factors make it extraordinarily difficult for her to increase support among independents - an essential group to appeal to if one is to win a national election. But more importantly, together with her record of patently untrue statements, they make it easy to undermine what support she has. Finally, these kinds of issues lead to a low turnout, something which favors Republicans.
Bottom Line: If Democrats want to win, they need to run Sanders. But the Establishment - including the moneyed interests, the media, the think tanks, many of the unions, and the Party rank and file -- are lining up behind Hillary like lemmings in front of a cliff.
If the nightmare of Trump - or Cruz or Rubio - is to be avoided, it's up to the young, the alienated and the disaffected to get out and vote for Sanders.
The alternative is a reign of hate, divisiveness, greed, jingoism, and fear.


