Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[dudalb]

I was wondering the same thing.

I know it doesn't matter, because the delegates rule the day, and given the weird square-dance activities that are the Democratic method, there may not be a definitive answer after all, but, I'm wondering, what are the actual vote totals, Bernie vs. Hillary?
Who is winning the popular vote between them, as of now?

Because Michigan is not a winner take all state. Bernie got 65 ,Hilary 58.

 

[varwoche]

Because she lost by less than 2% so the delegates were split almost evenly while she won Mississippi by ~70% so most of those delegates went to her.

It's a tad bit mind-boggling that some people are having a hard time digesting this elementary fact. Go figure.

 

[dudalb]

In fact, none of the Democratic primaries are winner take all.

And I STILL want solid evidence, not some cherry picked poll or Lost Tribe of Voters nonsense that Bernie can take down Trump in November.

 

[The Big Dog]

And I STILL want solid evidence, not some cherry picked poll or Lost Tribe of Voters nonsense that Bernie can take down Trump in November.

That is silly if you gave it one second of thought....

 

[Belz...]

It's a tad bit mind-boggling that some people are having a hard time digesting this elementary fact. Go figure.

I guess different people understand different things at different speeds. Who'd have thought?

 

[Belz...]

In fact, none of the Democratic primaries are winner take all.

And I STILL want solid evidence, not some cherry picked poll or Lost Tribe of Voters nonsense that Bernie can take down Trump in November.

I think the prospect of a United States of Trump is getting frighteningly realistic regardless of who he faces.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

She won Nevada by 5% and needed Harry Reid to coordinate with the casino owners and unions in Las Vegas to give their people time off to vote for Hillary. Also, Nevada should be solid blue by now, but the DNC has worked hard to insult a lot of folks there.

And she did well in red states because she is still connected to the political machines there.

Of course! How could we forget about the conspiracies organized by The Machine^(tm)?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a tad bit mind-boggling that some people are having a hard time digesting this elementary fact. Go figure.

It's a plot.

 

[Random]

A vote for the Greens is a vote for Trump or Cruz. Think about that, and think about that very carefully.

Thought about it. Still not voting for Clinton. Voting for the lesser evil might make tactical sense, but voting for the lesser evil over and over again makes no strategic sense. You just give more room for the candidates to be evil next time. At some point you have to say enough is enough and stop supporting evil in general. I reached that point when Obama started floating his ****-ing Chained-CPI BS. No more supporting people who I don’t want to elect. I think Clinton is too far to the right. Does anyone think that if I vote for Clinton, she will move to the left when she gets into office? Anyone?

If you give the schoolyard bully your lunch money once, he will come back for your lunch money again and again. Fight him, and you might get pounded once, but the bully is a lot less likely to come around again.

 

[luchog]

Depends on how you look at it. The general election is decided by the middle. Doing well in red states suggests she might perform well with the middle.

Unlikely, since Bernie is doing better so far in the states with larger democrat and swing contingents. Southern states are more likely to go to a Republican candidate. The South has voted Republican quite consistently since 1980. There were a few defections in the '90s, and Florida in the last two elections; but the GOP still dominated the region. In fact, with the exception of 1976, the GOP has dominated the south since the late 1960s.

Overall, Bernie is doing better with the middle than Hillary is. The overwhelming majority of her big wins have been in the deeply conservative South, where she already has strong ties and recognition. Moving out of the South, Bernie is pulling ahead in overall wins, picking up 9 out of 12 states; with Clinton barely eeking out a win in two swing states, Iowa and Massachusetts, and doing only slightly better in a third, Nevada.

By contrast, Sanders' wins have been more decisive overall, with at 10 points difference or better; Michigan being the only closely contested race.

My predictions:
As the election moves into more traditionally liberal states, outside the Clinton stronghold, I am predicting more and stronger Sanders wins, particularly in the west, despite the lack of press coverage; and eventual defection of at least a large minority of superdelegates. Florida has been swinging Democrat in the last couple elections, so that is very likely up for grabs, and could go either way. Ohio is likely to also be a close race, but I'm leaning slightly to Bernie in that one. The strongly liberal Pacific coast states are probably going to go strongly to Sanders, with Clinton picking up the rest of the South; and possibly a few in the more conservative-leaning Atlantic coast states, as well as conservative Alaska.

Clinton appears to appeal predominantly to conservative-leaning swing voters outside the South, while Sanders is motivating those leaning more liberal, and picking up a substantial percentage of far-left third-party voters.

 

[dudalb]

I think the prospect of a United States of Trump is getting frighteningly realistic regardless of who he faces.

What is mind boggling to me is how some Sanders supporters would support Trump if Hilary gets the nomination. This is good example of the whole ":Let's Burn The House Down To Get Rid Of The Mice" mentality that seems to be gripping a lot of people.
It is frighitinly like that that gripped Germany in 1933.

 

[dudalb]

Unlikely, since Bernie is doing better so far in the states with larger democrat and swing contingents. Southern states are more likely to go to a Republican candidate. The South has voted Republican quite consistently since 1980. There were a few defections in the '90s, and Florida in the last two elections; but the GOP still dominated the region. In fact, with the exception of 1976, the GOP has dominated the south since the late 1960s.

Overall, Bernie is doing better with the middle than Hillary is. The overwhelming majority of her big wins have been in the deeply conservative South, where she already has strong ties and recognition. Moving out of the South, Bernie is pulling ahead in overall wins, picking up 9 out of 12 states; with Clinton barely eeking out a win in two swing states, Iowa and Massachusetts, and doing only slightly better in a third, Nevada.

By contrast, Sanders' wins have been more decisive overall, with at 10 points difference or better; Michigan being the only closely contested race.

My predictions:
As the election moves into more traditionally liberal states, outside the Clinton stronghold, I am predicting more and stronger Sanders wins, particularly in the west, despite the lack of press coverage; and eventual defection of at least a large minority of superdelegates. Florida has been swinging Democrat in the last couple elections, so that is very likely up for grabs, and could go either way. Ohio is likely to also be a close race, but I'm leaning slightly to Bernie in that one. The strongly liberal Pacific coast states are probably going to go strongly to Sanders, with Clinton picking up the rest of the South; and possibly a few in the more conservative-leaning Atlantic coast states, as well as conservative Alaska.

Clinton appears to appeal predominantly to conservative-leaning swing voters outside the South, while Sanders is motivating those leaning more liberal, and picking up a substantial percentage of far-left third-party voters.

I see you divide the world into Liberals and Conservatives;Centrist voters do not exist.
Funny how ideologues seem to do that....

 

[lobosrul]

Unlikely, since Bernie is doing better so far in the states with larger democrat and swing contingents. Southern states are more likely to go to a Republican candidate. The South has voted Republican quite consistently since 1980. There were a few defections in the '90s, and Florida in the last two elections; but the GOP still dominated the region. In fact, with the exception of 1976, the GOP has dominated the south since the late 1960s.

Overall, Bernie is doing better with the middle than Hillary is. The overwhelming majority of her big wins have been in the deeply conservative South, where she already has strong ties and recognition. Moving out of the South, Bernie is pulling ahead in overall wins, picking up 9 out of 12 states; with Clinton barely eeking out a win in two swing states, Iowa and Massachusetts, and doing only slightly better in a third, Nevada.

By contrast, Sanders' wins have been more decisive overall, with at 10 points difference or better; Michigan being the only closely contested race.

My predictions:
As the election moves into more traditionally liberal states, outside the Clinton stronghold, I am predicting more and stronger Sanders wins, particularly in the west, despite the lack of press coverage; and eventual defection of at least a large minority of superdelegates. Florida has been swinging Democrat in the last couple elections, so that is very likely up for grabs, and could go either way. Ohio is likely to also be a close race, but I'm leaning slightly to Bernie in that one. The strongly liberal Pacific coast states are probably going to go strongly to Sanders, with Clinton picking up the rest of the South; and possibly a few in the more conservative-leaning Atlantic coast states, as well as conservative Alaska.

Clinton appears to appeal predominantly to conservative-leaning swing voters outside the South, while Sanders is motivating those leaning more liberal, and picking up a substantial percentage of far-left third-party voters.

I'm not sure it really matters how liberal a state is in how well Bernie does. He took Oklahoma after all. Its what is the makeup of the voters or caucusers in each state. It wouldn't surprise me if he took Alaska for example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thought about it. Still not voting for Clinton. Voting for the lesser evil might make tactical sense, but voting for the lesser evil over and over again makes no strategic sense. You just give more room for the candidates to be evil next time. At some point you have to say enough is enough and stop supporting evil in general. I reached that point when Obama started floating his ****-ing Chained-CPI BS. No more supporting people who I don’t want to elect. I think Clinton is too far to the right. Does anyone think that if I vote for Clinton, she will move to the left when she gets into office? Anyone?

If you give the schoolyard bully your lunch money once, he will come back for your lunch money again and again. Fight him, and you might get pounded once, but the bully is a lot less likely to come around again.

Your logic and at least one of your facts is a fail.

Logic: once Clinton is the nominee, you have already said enough (assuming you are voting for Sanders in the primary). Using your metaphor of the schoolyard bully, you got pounded once, but he's still coming around again no matter what.

As for the facts, Clinton is much more left of center, right of Sanders, than she is the right wing you seem to think she is.

But compare that to your choices: Trump, the unpredictable crazy guy who talks about himself for hours at a time, or, Cruz, an Evangelical extremist.

You have many months to think about it. If Sanders loses, you might want to drop the revolution and settle for making progress.

 

[lobosrul]

What is mind boggling to me is how some Sanders supporters would support Trump if Hilary gets the nomination. This is good example of the whole ":Let's Burn The House Down To Get Rid Of The Mice" mentality that seems to be gripping a lot of people.

Pffffft. Extremely few of them (or us I guess) would support Trump. They may not vote for HRC. I myself probably will vote 3rd party (is Gary Johnson running again?) unless I think Trump has even a tiny chance of taking New Mexico, not likely.

It is frighitinly like that that gripped Germany in 1933.

A break... please give me one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

 

[wareyin]

Depends on how you look at it. The general election is decided by the middle. Doing well in red states suggests she might perform well with the middle.

Also, Nevada is considered a battle ground state, which she won handily.

Indeed. One could look at it as the only places Sanders is doing well in are going to vote Dem anyway, whether Sanders in the nominee or Clinton is.

 

[dudalb]

Pffffft. Extremely few of them (or us I guess) would support Trump. They may not vote for HRC. I myself probably will vote 3rd party (is Gary Johnson running again?) unless I think Trump has even a tiny chance of taking New Mexico, not likely.



A break... please give me one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

A vote for a third party it defadt a vote for Trump.

 

[The Big Dog]

What is mind boggling to me is how some Sanders supporters would support Trump if Hilary gets the nomination. This is good example of the whole ":Let's Burn The House Down To Get Rid Of The Mice" mentality that seems to be gripping a lot of people.
It is frighitinly like that that gripped Germany in 1933.

This, then:

I see you divide the world into Liberals and Conservatives;Centrist voters do not exist.
Funny how ideologues seem to do that....

hey you Nazi Bernie Voters are a bunch of ideologues!

I love back to back wildly ironic posts

 

[BenBurch]

That is silly if you gave it one second of thought....

Perfectly.

We are seeing a demographic shift that has left the pollsters (even Silver) speechless. But can anybody prove that it is going to be enough to defeat Hitler Trump? Nobody can prove that about Wels Clinton, either.

 

[lobosrul]

Indeed. One could look at it as the only places Sanders is doing well in are going to vote Dem anyway, whether Sanders in the nominee or Clinton is.

That's not true. He took Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska which will surely go R. Also he took Minn, Michigan and New Hampshire which could go either way.