Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You can do what you want. But if is Hillary and Trump, one of them will become President of the United States. It is not possible that someone else would win the election. The only thing that people who vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton is not ideologically pure enough for them could conceivably collectively "achieve" is make it more likely that Donald Trump becomes the President. If that is acceptable to you, so be it.

Not necessarily. This assumes that they would vote for Hillary in the absence of the third party candidate, when instead they might be an alienated voter sufficiently distant from both major candidates who would stay home.

 

[BenBurch]

Not necessarily. This assumes that they would vote for Hillary in the absence of the third party candidate, when instead they might be an alienated voter sufficiently distant from both major candidates who would stay home.

I've been telling people this for months.

 

[Trakar]

You can do what you want. But if is Hillary and Trump, one of them will become President of the United States. It is not possible that someone else would win the election. The only thing that people who vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton is not ideologically pure enough for them could conceivably collectively "achieve" is make it more likely that Donald Trump becomes the President. If that is acceptable to you, so be it.

Since I will never vote for Hillary, you choosing to support her is like voting for Trump from my perspective. Your actions are making it more likely that Trump will win, because many people will never vote for Hillary. It might only be 5-15% (on the Left), but Hillary can't even get her own electorate excited about her candidacy, yet alone the record turnout numbers of conservative, fundamentalist republicans she will pull out of the woodwork on the Republican side to vote against another Clinton (yet alone first-gentleman Slick Willy) from ever inhabiting the White House again. If a weak Hillary candidate against a dominant Trump who can leverage more money into his campaign than Hillary or her superPACs can raise goes to the White House against the most establishment candidate the Democratic leadership could find. I will hold all of her supporters responsible for deliberately forcing upon us all a candidate who can't win, out of little more than a privileged sense of entitlement.

A Starkian is difficult to imitate...

 

[Foolmewunz]

I know what a floor fight means. This is the crap part of your assertion: "there is no first or second round choice and you use your power bloc to attempt to convince enough now-freed delegates to your side."

They would have to be exactly tied and that doesn't look to be the case.

To nitpick, what Ben's referring to is not the way "floor fight" is normally used. I'd like to know if that's Ben's mistake or from someone in the campaign. A "floor fight" is generally used to describe battles within the convention to seat alternate delegates or to ramp up support for platform items. (The GOP loves a good floor fight. That's how they get all sorts of true blue items included in the platform that the candidate then ignores.)

A "no decision" on the first ballot creates a "brokered convention". There may well be scrambling, but the method of securing delegates is not "a floor fight", per se.

Ben - did Sanders actually say that he's preparing for a floor fight? Or is that your interpretation? The only "floor fight" issue I can see is if they dispute the super delegates or claim that apportionment of delegates was unfair, or that irregularities in the votes in however many states merit a reapportionment.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You can do what you want. But if is Hillary and Trump, one of them will become President of the United States. It is not possible that someone else would win the election. The only thing that people who vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton is not ideologically pure enough for them could conceivably collectively "achieve" is make it more likely that Donald Trump becomes the President. If that is acceptable to you, so be it.

Well, "collectively", yes. But if you're voting in one of those 99% Dem districts like I used to? Not so much. I used to throw away my Congressional vote and give it to the most radical socialist I could find on the ballot. (Not hard - I lived in Alphabet City and knew most of the Marxists and Leninists and Trotskyites in the area.) The Dems were never in any danger of losing our Congressional seat. I think that applies equally in presidential votes in, say, Massachusetts (if you're a Dem) or Idaho (if you're GOP). It's a personal choice.

I agree if you're talking about Nader-style Florida results. If you're in a swing state and you support a fringe candidate on principle, and you get enough of your ilk to do the same, you can wind up with your protest or stay-at-home votes swinging the state.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not necessarily. This assumes that they would vote for Hillary in the absence of the third party candidate, when instead they might be an alienated voter sufficiently distant from both major candidates who would stay home.

I understand some of the people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is insufficiently ideologically pure would stay home. Republicans would love that too. Their only real hope of winning the election is if lots of people on the left don't vote for Hillary. Does not matter to them whether those people stay home or vote third party.

I expect that they will do everything they can to make this happen. Including trying to convince liberals she may as well be a Republican and so there is no point in voting for her.

 

[BenBurch]

I wonder what the ratio on the converse side is? How many Clinton supporters will never cast a ballot for Sanders?

 

[Tony Stark]

Since I will never vote for Hillary, you choosing to support her is like voting for Trump from my perspective. Your actions are making it more likely that Trump will win, because many people will never vote for Hillary. It might only be 5-15% (on the Left), but Hillary can't even get her own electorate excited about her candidacy, yet alone the record turnout numbers of conservative, fundamentalist republicans she will pull out of the woodwork on the Republican side to vote against another Clinton (yet alone first-gentleman Slick Willy) from ever inhabiting the White House again. If a weak Hillary candidate against a dominant Trump who can leverage more money into his campaign than Hillary or her superPACs can raise goes to the White House against the most establishment candidate the Democratic leadership could find. I will hold all of her supporters responsible for deliberately forcing upon us all a candidate who can't win, out of little more than a privileged sense of entitlement.

A Starkian is difficult to imitate...

My actions? I voted for Bernie Sanders (I've posted a photo of the ballot to prove it). Just because I understand that the notion that she may as well be a Republican is ridiculous nonsense doesn’t mean I support her. I agree with Bernie more than her. Doesn't mean that I should believe things that are false. She is pretty liberal in the context of American politics, to the left of both Bill and Obama. And significantly to the left of every Republican in Congress.

That said, yeah, of course I will vote for her in the likely event she is nominated. Because she is way better than Trump or Cruz. She would not give massive tax cuts to the rich, for example. And she would certainly appoint liberal Supreme Court justices like Bill and Obama did. But if you don't think that things like that matter enough, feel free to take a course of action that best benefit Republicans. They certainly hope that there are enough people on the left that are that foolish.

Also, if low turnout for the Democratic primaries means that Hillary can't excite the party, certainly logic dictates that Bernie excites it even less given the fact that he is losing to her and all.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Really the only problem that might arise is if Bernie shows up at the convention with more ordinary delegates than Hillary, but Hillary has enough Superdelegates to win a majority. That is when the grand-poobahs of the DNC would need to do some serious soul-searching. Saying "Bernie has more Dem voter support, but we're giving the nom to Hillary anyway" could get ugly. Like, '68 ugly...

Not going to happen. The reason that Hillary currently has the Super Delegates is because they see her as more electable, but if Bernie catches up and surpasses Hillary to get more popular vote and delegates by the convention you'll see the same thing that happened in 2008, the Super delegates switching from Hillary to Bernie. The whole "The Establishment is against Bernie" thing is a Myth created by Bernie Supporters. Bernie is part of the Democratic Establishment, he has been for a long time, he's just refused to join the Party officially until now because of appearances, but in every other way that counted he is so ingrained as part of the Party to claim they would not support him is plain ridiculous.

 

[stevea]

Well if it came down to Hillary vs Trump, a lot of Reps would stay home too. So I don't think the Hillary=unexciting factor will hurt her badly.

As usual the US 'first past the post' voting system means that we must all hold our noses and vote for the least-worst candidate rather than the one we prefer. That's been clear to me for decades - it's merely more apparent to more voters now that the likely choices are so awful.
--

But this all ignores the mechanics of the US presidential election. In 48 states, a PLURALITY of the popular vote takes all of the electoral college votes. Many big states are already effectively decided - TX will be Rep, and NY will be Dem. So the entire election comes down to getting an absolute MAJORITY of electoral votes by taking a PLURALITY in the several swing states.

3rd party is a pipe-dream. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. I don't think a 3rd party has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in recent history. It best I think a 3rd party might capture a small state (Wyoming or Vermont) or a couple congressional district voets from the two 'split' states (NE & ME) and have a couple electoral votes total. The cards are stacke against any 3rd party (matching funds is another hurdle) but they can have an influence.

The electoral college vote requires an absolute majority to decide on the Presidency. It's pretty unlikely that the two parties would get a 269/269 split, but if just a few electoral votes were cast for a third party, then it becomes much more probably in a contested race that no one would get the required 270 e-votes.

Another factor - in US history there have been 17 'faithless elector' votes cast in ~235 years.. Electors who chose to not vote as their states directed them. This could also cause a failure to achieve an electoral majority.

The failure to get an electoral majority would throw the decision to the House of Representatives - which would give a 'budge' to Reps.


---

My point -

Our system is a travesty. We need to get rid of first-past-post voting and institute an instant runoff or variant election system. Winner-take-all electors is nothing but a way to disenfranchise ~50% of the population of 48 states. It's criminally unjust. We need to get rid of all impediments to 3rd parties, and to remove the 'crony' advantages of these two lousy parties.

 

[Belz...]

How about a system like France's where you vote in two volleys? Once for the candidate you want, and then for the one of two leading candidates you dislike the least.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well if it came down to Hillary vs Trump, a lot of Reps would stay home too. So I don't think the Hillary=unexciting factor will hurt her badly.

As usual the US 'first past the post' voting system means that we must all hold our noses and vote for the least-worst candidate rather than the one we prefer. That's been clear to me for decades - it's merely more apparent to more voters now that the likely choices are so awful.
--

But this all ignores the mechanics of the US presidential election. In 48 states, a PLURALITY of the popular vote takes all of the electoral college votes. Many big states are already effectively decided - TX will be Rep, and NY will be Dem. So the entire election comes down to getting an absolute MAJORITY of electoral votes by taking a PLURALITY in the several swing states.

3rd party is a pipe-dream. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. I don't think a 3rd party has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in recent history. It best I think a 3rd party might capture a small state (Wyoming or Vermont) or a couple congressional district voets from the two 'split' states (NE & ME) and have a couple electoral votes total. The cards are stacke against any 3rd party (matching funds is another hurdle) but they can have an influence.

The electoral college vote requires an absolute majority to decide on the Presidency. It's pretty unlikely that the two parties would get a 269/269 split, but if just a few electoral votes were cast for a third party, then it becomes much more probably in a contested race that no one would get the required 270 e-votes.

Another factor - in US history there have been 17 'faithless elector' votes cast in ~235 years.. Electors who chose to not vote as their states directed them. This could also cause a failure to achieve an electoral majority.

The failure to get an electoral majority would throw the decision to the House of Representatives - which would give a 'budge' to Reps.


---

My point -

Our system is a travesty. We need to get rid of first-past-post voting and institute an instant runoff or variant election system. Winner-take-all electors is nothing but a way to disenfranchise ~50% of the population of 48 states. It's criminally unjust. We need to get rid of all impediments to 3rd parties, and to remove the 'crony' advantages of these two lousy parties.

Making third parties viable in Presidential elections would require a Constitution amendment. Getting rid of winner take all electors wouldn't do it. The real impediment is the requirement that the winner get a majority of the electors. The only way that reliably happens is if there are only two major parties. If there were three, it would be more likely than not that nobody would get a majority resulting in the House electing the President and even then there is no guarantee that a majority would be able to settle on one of three people.

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, I watched the Bernie on Castro video.

What's so bad about it?

Come on now!

 

[angrysoba]

By the way, Hillary is here with the Saudis.

I guess nobody cares about this because even though Saudi Arabia is objectively more evil than Cuba, SA is "friendly".

 

[Childlike Empress]

Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Bernie Stories In 16 Hours

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To nitpick, what Ben's referring to is not the way "floor fight" is normally used. I'd like to know if that's Ben's mistake or from someone in the campaign. A "floor fight" is generally used to describe battles within the convention to seat alternate delegates or to ramp up support for platform items. (The GOP loves a good floor fight. That's how they get all sorts of true blue items included in the platform that the candidate then ignores.)

A "no decision" on the first ballot creates a "brokered convention". There may well be scrambling, but the method of securing delegates is not "a floor fight", per se.

Ben - did Sanders actually say that he's preparing for a floor fight? Or is that your interpretation? The only "floor fight" issue I can see is if they dispute the super delegates or claim that apportionment of delegates was unfair, or that irregularities in the votes in however many states merit a reapportionment.

That is what I thought he meant and it is what my post addressed. It's highly unlikely there will not be a clear winner in the Democratic primary on the first ballot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, I watched the Bernie on Castro video.

What's so bad about it?

Come on now!

Are you joking or serious?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By the way, Hillary is here with the Saudis.

I guess nobody cares about this because even though Saudi Arabia is objectively more evil than Cuba, SA is "friendly".

It's not about my values or yours, it's about the values of the country. The poor and indigenous people suffered in Central America including in Cuba. Our intervention in those countries sucked. And yes, Saudi Arabia has a lot of blame for the rise of Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism.

You're preaching to the choir here. But that's not the problem. The problem is how the bulk of the voting public perceives an old hippie praising Castro in the 60s. Think Swift Boat on steroids.


Edited to add, the video being replayed is from the 80s.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On another note, why are Karl Rove and the Koch brothers supporting Sanders' campaign?

Why an arm of the Koch empire is praising Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tried to link her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to the Koch brothers by making a reference to an ad released by an organization associated with the Koch brothers during the debate on March 9. (The Washington Post)
At the center of the complicated octopus that is the Koch brothers’ political engagement and outreach network sits an organization called Freedom Partners. The Kochs, through their collection of political groups and nonprofits, spend millions of dollars in opposition to government regulation and in support of conservative causes and candidates. Freedom Partners collects contributions from the Kochs and others to spend toward that end.

On Wednesday, hours before the Democrats debated in Florida, Freedom Partners unveiled an ad with an unusual message: We agree with Bernie Sanders. ...

During Wednesday night's debate, Hillary Clinton used the ad as a cudgel. “Koch brothers” is a toxic phrase to Democrats, and that a Koch-aligned group gave Sanders praise was clearly irresistible to the former secretary of state. “I just think it’s worth pointing out that the leaders of the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, have just paid to put up an ad praising Senator Sanders,” Clinton said. “There are a lot of different powerful interests in Washington. I’ve taken them on.”

The article goes on to say it's not exactly as Clinton made it sound. But one thing is clear, the Kochs and Rove (links posted earlier) would rather fight Sanders than Clinton in the general election.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's why it matters: Bernie Sanders Declines to Disavow Past Praise of Cuban Communism at Debate

What the ’85 interview “was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow, in 1954, the democratically elected government of Guatemala,” the Vermont senator said. But he also passed up the chance to directly criticize Castro, reiterating his praise for Cuban health care and education and only noting after a follow-up question that the country is “authoritarian” and “undemocratic.”....

Hillary Clinton subsequently slammed Sanders’ answer, asserting that “in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves.” Continued Clinton: “I just couldn’t disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.”