Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[lobosrul]

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

No its not. You could perhaps think of it as a half vote for Trump and Hillary each.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You won't get that unless Sanders actually wins the primary because few people in the GOP are worried about Sanders and they will no doubt hold their fire in hopes of a Sanders primary win. No polls run before the barrage of: 'Sanders is going to tax you to death and he's a commie' will be the least bit predictive.



On another note: In Sanders latest news round he says Clinton won the South because the Clintons have connections there. Then he goes on to inform us he won Vermont because those are the people who know him best. Uhh, Bernie, isn't it the same that the folks in the South know Clinton the best as well?

 

[Random]

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.

Left and right wing are subjective, and depend in great deal on the opinion of the viewer. I am extremely left wing by US politics standards. From my perspective, Bernie is a moderate, Hillary is right wing and Trump is… well, kind of an abstract concept to me… like how mathematicians tell us infinity isn’t really a number…

 

[luchog]

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.

That's because he's picking up a huge number of independent and swing voters. In Michigan, CNN exit polls in Michigan show him with a 46 point lead over Clinton among Independent voters. States with large Independent and swing voting populations are likely to vote Sanders, while predominantly conservative states are leaning more toward Clinton.

I'm basing my predictions on past voting history for those states. Parts of the Midwest are likely to vote Republican, but those states don't really elect presidents, swing states do; and Sanders is edging ahead in swing states.

 

[Tony Stark]

No. See my post and others explaining yesterdays delegate wins.

Or, forgive me if I missed your sarcasm.

This was in reference to why she has more Michigan delegates according to the AP delegate tracker which explicitly says that it includes super delegates.

 

[lobosrul]

That's because he's picking up a huge number of independent and swing voters. In Michigan, CNN exit polls in Michigan show him with a 46 point lead over Clinton among Independent voters. States with large Independent and swing voting populations are likely to vote Sanders, while predominantly conservative states are leaning more toward Clinton.

I'm basing my predictions on past voting history for those states. Parts of the Midwest are likely to vote Republican, but those states don't really elect presidents, swing states do; and Sanders is edging ahead in swing states.

Oh, I agree with that. He's already won 3 potential swing states. He's really defying the "he can only win among liberal voters" myth.

And to be clear, I consider myself an independent voter. I've voted for republicans before, and might do so in the future, if I think politics go too far left in this country, but right now they are so far right we've lost track of what the center even is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Trump is… well, kind of an abstract concept to me… like how mathematicians tell us infinity isn’t really a number…

 

[dudalb]

Oh, I agree with that. He's already won 3 potential swing states. He's really defying the "he can only win among liberal voters" myth.

And to be clear, I consider myself an independent voter. I've voted for republicans before, and might do so in the future, if I think politics go too far left in this country, but right now they are so far right we've lost track of what the center even is.

You do know that voters in a general election and the voters in a primary election are vastly different?

 

[lobosrul]

Left and right wing are subjective, and depend in great deal on the opinion of the viewer. I am extremely left wing by US politics standards. From my perspective, Bernie is a moderate, Hillary is right wing and Trump is… well, kind of an abstract concept to me… like how mathematicians tell us infinity isn’t really a number…

Hah, what does that make Ted Cruz then?

 

[dudalb]

Look, at this point I just want to beat Trump or Cruz in November. I am just skeptical of Sanders abilty to do that.

 

[dudalb]

Hah, what does that make Ted Cruz then?

A religious fanatic?

 

[BenBurch]

Hah, what does that make Ted Cruz then?

SQRT(-1)

 

[lobosrul]

You do know that voters in a general election and the voters in a primary election are vastly different?

Of course, turnout is higher in the general. And the comparison depends on what kind of primary it was. Michigan was an open primary for example, any registered voter could walk in and vote for Bernie Sanders OR vote in the republican primary for Kasich (I'm pretty sure you can't do both). Its really his most important victory in a lot of ways.

I really do think Sanders is the more palatable choice to independents than he's being given credit; as compared to HRC that is.

 

[luchog]

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.

There are a few polls that show Sanders as much stronger against Trump than Clinton; but those are still far too early in the race to be clear predictors.

A better predictor is the makeup of the primary voters, and the platforms. Although polar opposites, Trump and Sanders are both effectively running Populist platforms. By contrast, Clinton, Rubio, and Cruz are running business-as-usual machine-politics platforms.

When it comes down to it, a populist platform is going to be work better among younger and working-class electorates than machine politics; and those are the key blocs for this election.

Clinton's stronghold is the South, and she's going to lose the majority of it to the GOP; particularly if Cruz is nominated (Trump has managed to alienate too much of the Hispanic population, so is likely to split the south more evenly). The rest of the country is likely to vote along the usual lines, leaning toward whichever candidate is seen as more populist. With a Trump vs. Clinton race, Trump has the advantage, and the independent turnout will likely be low. In a Sanders vs. Trump race, Sanders will have the advantage, since he is likely to pick up a disgruntled moderate Republican bloc, along with the independents. Cruz vs. Sanders would be a close race, but independents are still likely to be strong for Sanders, and he would likely win that one as well. Clinton vs. Cruz is anyone's guess, but likely favouring Cruz by a small margin, since Clinton is not doing well on motivating independents.

 

[luchog]

I really do think Sanders is the more palatable choice to independents than he's being given credit; as compared to HRC that is.

CNN exit polls bear this out, as Sanders picked up 3:1 independent voters vs. Clinton in the Michigan primaries in record-high turnouts. Clinton just isn't capable of motivating the Independents the way Sanders is, and that will hurt her badly in the general, as they're likely to vote third-party or abstain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was in reference to why she has more Michigan delegates according to the AP delegate tracker which explicitly says that it includes super delegates.

I had to look hard to find the Michigan superdelegates listed in the totals. Sanders 65 and Clinton 58 shows up everywhere. OTOH, obviously that doesn't add up to the 148 that the same sites all show for Michigan's delegates.

Wiki shows 9 SDs for Clinton and 8 undecided if I counted right and if it is up to date. That brings the delegates up to 140.

The DailyCaller says Clinton has 10 SDs. It should be noted that means there are 7 or 8 uncommitted that could still go to Sanders.

It still doesn't add up to the 148 delegates the state is supposed to have. Maybe the 58-65 isn't even the actual totals. It's all very confusing.


*Funny side note, Bill and Bernie are superdelegates. Hillary isn't one.

 

[varwoche]

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 would be nice to see a couple of past elections where this worked out -- where burning down the house actually caused something positive.

Gore's loss? Give me an f'in break. What we got was a world class tragedy that will take generations to recover from, if ever. Not to mention an economy driven into a ditch.

Last but not least, SCOTUS composition spans generations.

 

[NoahFence]

She won big in MIssisippi,enough to overcome the deficit from Michigan.

There was an image upthread that gave Hillary more delegates - in Michigan.

 

[lobosrul]

It would be nice to see a couple of past elections where this worked out -- where burning down the house actually caused something positive.

Gore's loss? Give me an f'in break. What we got was a world class tragedy that will take generations to recover from, if ever. Not to mention an economy driven into a ditch.

Last but not least, SCOTUS composition spans generations.

Hmm, you could say the "new deal democrats" were torn down in the 50's and replaced with the new civil rights Democratic party in the 60's.

The Republican party rose out of the ashes of the Whig party. Definitely a good thing in the 1860's.

 

[dudalb]

It would be nice to see a couple of past elections where this worked out -- where burning down the house actually caused something positive.

Gore's loss? Give me an f'in break. What we got was a world class tragedy that will take generations to recover from, if ever. Not to mention an economy driven into a ditch.

Last but not least, SCOTUS composition spans generations.

Prime example of why a "Let's Burn The House Down" election is a bad idea is 1860..........