The blueprint to beat Clinton has been written, and it is a plan Sanders is following with more success than anyone this election. He has for more individual support then she does. That is likely to translate into actual votes come primaries, much like it did for Obama. You tout the path Obama took to beat Clinton as something that can not be replicated by Sanders but he is in a similar place that Obama was in 2007 albeit with less endorsements, but the money is there and from a staggering amount of individuals. Those who support a candidate finanically are more likely to vote then those who don't, especially in the primaries.
I don't see the same things that killed Clinton in 08 are happening now to Sanders, he isn't the front runner with a 30 pt margin to choke away. Most of her fundraising comes from corporations and wall street lkke it did and they have very little say in the voting booth too. Discounting the number of donors that have backed Sanders as of now is shortsighted since that was what propelled Obama's legendary GOTV. I did not mean to offend you by asking you to do a bit of research on DWS. I have little faith in her and hold the Clinton campaign in no way responsible for the actions of the DNC. In fact I hope that this causes the Clinton camp to distance themselves from the bad decisions that the DNC has made during this primary. Which if looked at objectivly as many well respected Obama supporters have, including the person that ran his campaign, the leadership of the DNC are using the control of the primary to suppress a challenged to their preferred candidate, that is hard to dispute.
We will find out who will have the legendary GOTV come March 1st.
You're trotting out the same old arguments of how Bernie is comparable to Obama, so I guess the same explanation of the clear differences between the two candidates has be trotted out again too.
Obama had significant establishment support, in particular a key endorsement from Ted Kennedy. As a result the party was more divided between Hillary and Obama as opposed to how unified they are behind Hillary in this round.
Obama had much better staff, ones that did not make the fumbles Bernie's staff has made, and Obama also appeared to be in control of his campaign as opposed to Bernie's campaign continually acting out behind his back.
The Obama staff devised a clear strategy that spanned 50 states using the rules of the primary cleverly. At this point in the campaign cycle, his campaign had ground game beyond the early primary states. It helped that because Obama was a Democrat, he had a built-in floor of ground support across the country. Bernie only became a Democrat to run for president, after spurning the party for his whole career. He doesn't particularly have the assistance of existing Democratic local organizations around the country. Said Obama strategy in 2008, which was Hillary's loss, is unlikely to work against her a second time.
The money raised is not so much a question of number nowadays but a question of smart deployment. Obama's campaign translated their massive fundraising into technology that assisted them greatly in analyzing the best places to concentrate their efforts. The technology took months to build and refine both in a technical sense and in information. Bernie, on the other hand, has only been hiring state organizers; his campaign, judging from this incident, clearly does not seem to have basic technological know-how, much less say technological prowess. It's probably why they're stealing data from Hillary instead of spending their money on developing their own. In the old-fashioned way, the Bernie campaign has instead been spending their money blanketing Iowa and NH with television ads.
You claim those who support a candidate financially are more likely to vote than those who don't. But where is the data on this?
Obama as a candidate himself showed ability to do more than just punch, he could dodge and swerve. He was capable of adapting, and worked hard to beat Hillary. In comparison, Bernie didn't prepare for the first debate, he showed his inability to leave his comfort zone through the debacles with BLM at Netroots and his 30 seconds on Paris in the second debate. Even Ben Carson is trying to learn more about foreign policy.
Hillary wasn't "killed" in 2008. Obama beat her by a slim margin in delegates (4%) and with the various ways to read the popular vote, they were within 100k~ range of popular votes of each other, out of some 36 million primary voters. In terms of individuals, more people have voted for Hillary Clinton than have ever voted for Bernie Sanders (approximately 18 million).
What hampered Hillary's campaign in 2008 was a series of mistakes made by poor staff. Which is exactly what is happening to Bernie's campaign.
Finally, the polls show that the majority of individuals, as you are so keen on using as a term, are supporting Hillary Clinton. But of course, you are disregarding the polls because they are 'inaccurate', rather much like how Karl Rove had his meltdown on election night in 2012 denying the facts.
If there is someone who has to do a little research, it's probably you. It is foolish to compare the Obama campaign to the Bernie campaign.
