[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

The Democratic Party is generally supported in the voting booth by minorities. For Hillary--or any mainstream Democratic Party candidate--to win that demographic is not surprising, and because that demographic is highly unlikely to vote for the Republican candidate, I believe that winning their support is relatively meaningless.

Bernie, however, is getting those who typically don't vote (in any election, for any party) to vote for a candidate in the Democratic nomination. That is why I think that Bernie has changed the demographics.

But he hasn't changed the demographics of the Democratic Party. He's an independent running as a Democrat. He's winning the traditional base of an independent candidate (obviously, independents). He's been thoroughly dominated by the Democratic base. In essence these people don't support anything it appears, just Bernie. So really they're not even relevant to the electoral process, unless they vote Trump or Jill Stein. Otherwise they're vote won't matter, as it didn't in 2008 or 2012.

I am rather surprised that his screeds against the 1% and his promises of free tuition and whatever else hasn't resonated more with minority groups.

Actions matter most. As much as Bernie supporters have trashed Hillary has being an enemy of minorities (and they have), minorities themselves have generally looked at Hillary's track record of getting things done for them, and Bernie's track record of never getting anything done for them...and shockingly went with the candidate who got things done. One of the things minorities like about "insider" politicians like Hillary is they know how to get things done. Bernie might not even be fully backed by the Dems if he wins (lots of moderates and conservative Dems). Easy choice for minorities.

Presuming that you are referring to the last two Presidential elections, I submit that the Democrats won the first one because of Republican (and Bush) fatigue, and the second one because the Republicans had a generally unlikeable and unrelatable candidate.

And what do we have in this cycle? Arguably two of the least likable candidates ever in Trump or Cruz, one who's guaranteed to be the nominee. So the same applies here as it did in 2008 and 2012, unpopular, unlikable, unrelatable GOP candidate awaits.

Having more total votes simply doesn't matter in the end. What ultimately matters is winning the electoral college. Hillary may be able to do so, but I think that Sanders would have a better chance of success, and I think that is his underlying (but likely unstated) argument to the superdelegates.

Hillary, after 30 years, is so deep in the #### they've tried to bury her in she's started to grow mushrooms in there. Bernie is the cleanest candidate I've ever seen run in terms of never being vetted ever Because before this who cared about an independent Vermont senator who accomplished little to nothing legislatively? He's in for a billion dollar blitz against him, and he'll be easy to paint as anti-American given some of his past statements/stances. Beyond that, he can't even beat her in big swing states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida) in a Dem primary. At best you can say he has as good a chance to win the electoral college as she does, but that's dubious at best to claim.

Well, she's certainly been involved in, or claimed to be the subject of, several of them....

Yeah...but those are right wing loon talking points. When I see more and more Bernie supporters looking to the Ann Coulters of the world to pump Bernie up and to find points to slam Hillary on....ugh. Maybe this is the real revolution of Bernie: The birth of the left-wing version of the Tea Party.