Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[wareyin]

Because establishment Democratic supporters are more likely to both vote in the primaries and vote for the establishment candidate. That is why, for the most part, when the primary turnout is greater than 80% of what it was in 2008, Sanders wins. There is also a correlation pointing to a direct link between the volume of turnout over 80% being indicative of the size of the Sanders win margin. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but with a single exception, so far, it seems to be a pretty good Rule of Thumb.

You claimed that Clinton will depress turnout, yet she has greater turnout than Sanders. Either she is not depressing turnout, or Sanders has less support.

 

[Trakar]

It's not over til it's over...

By the beginning of March, America’s elites had already written Bernie Sanders off. “What makes Bernie Sanders think he can win Michigan?” After Hillary Clinton swept the southern states on Super Tuesday, they rushed to crown her as the inevitable Democratic nominee.

But on Tuesday, the establishment had their world turned upside down: Sanders won Michigan in what may go down as the greatest upset in a US presidential primaries.

Pollster Nate Silver gave Hillary a greater than 99% chance of winning. In the final 48 hours, Bernie and his multitude of supporters achieved the impossible: they closed a 21-point gap in the polls. The Bernie campaign is working toward a political revolution, and they’re playing to win.

Over the last few weeks, I worked my way inside the belly of the Bernie campaign. I saw the virtual chatrooms where thousands of super-volunteers are coordinating, and mapped their digital infrastructure, fast growing into something more powerful even than the Obama campaign.

I travelled through five battleground states and spoke with hundreds of his supporters, as well as analysts and insiders. What I found was the story of a political start-up growing exponentially in a cauldron of American discontent...

- http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/inside-bernie-sanders-campaign-do-or-die

A very good, but way too long for my brief blurb to do justice, article. Please, go to the link and read in its entirety.

 

[Trakar]

You claimed that Clinton will depress turnout, yet she has greater turnout than Sanders. Either she is not depressing turnout, or Sanders has less support.

Repeating your previous statement does not address my response to that previous statement.

 

[wareyin]

Repeating your previous statement does not address my response to that previous statement.

Considering that your response was a non sequitur, I felt you misunderstood my statement. Feel free to explain how the candidate with even fewer votes fits into your claim that Clinton will surpress turnout.

 

[Dog Town]

Considering that your response was a non sequitur, I felt you misunderstood my statement. Feel free to explain how the candidate with even fewer votes fits into your claim that Clinton will surpress turnout.

You would need to understand the difference between, general election, and primaries first!

 

[wareyin]

You would need to understand the difference between, general election, and primaries first!

Yes, fewer voters participate in primaries than in the general election. As Sanders is not able to motivate many of the people most motivated to vote (as I understand it, primary voters are most likely to also vote in the general), claims that Clinton will depress turnout but Sanders will increase turnout seem falsified by actual voting.

 

[timhau]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-shut-down-donald-trump-rally-chicago


A movement begins to find its voice in issues beyond electing its candidate, we'll need a lot more of this type of mobilization during Sanders' first term to help the pass the laws that neither of the establishment party cores want to put into effect in our country.

Do you find it acceptable to shut down election rallies of candidates you disagree with?

 

[Tony Stark]

Do you find it acceptable to shut down election rallies of candidates you disagree with?

People have exactly as much right to protest a Trump rally as he does to have one. And people wouldn't be protesting him so much if he wasn't such an openly disgusting piece of crap. You don't see those kinds of protests for the other candidates.

 

[mgidm86]

Do you find it acceptable to shut down election rallies of candidates you disagree with?

“Remember the #TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,” tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other lefty activists.

I'm curious about this too. Shutting down a rally due to safety concerns is not something I would be proud of. I thought liberals were all about tolerance? Poor losers? Go protest Hillary if you want to voice concern over someone who actually represents everything that is wrong with our government.

"Veterans of the Occupy movement" - great crowd to associate with. hey if you can't win, terrorize.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm curious about this too. Shutting down a rally due to safety concerns is not something I would be proud of. I thought liberals were all about tolerance? Poor losers? Go protest Hillary if you want to voice concern over someone who actually represents everything that is wrong with our government.

"Veterans of the Occupy movement" - great crowd to associate with. hey if you can't win, terrorize.

Liberals don't think you should tolerate bigot scum like Trump. Furthermore, it wasn't shut down due to safety concerns. The police did not tell him he should; they thought they could handle it. Trump is a flat out liar. He probably canceled it so he could blame protestors and play the victim.

 

[Trakar]

...Feel free to explain how the candidate with even fewer votes fits into your claim that Clinton will surpress turnout.

Well, as Sanders has consistently done much better when the voter turnout has been closer to the turnout in 2008, speaks to the issue that it isn't Bernie suppressing turnout, but does rather fit the profile that the lower the turnout the more likely there to be a favorable HRC outcome (additionally, there are examples where Senator Sanders seems to have actually expanded the Democratic primary voter base in some of these primaries):

I'll update this after next Tuesday's primaries.

The Highest turnout Hillary has won so far was Louisiana where turnout hit 81.1%. Sanders has won in every other primary contest where turnout has been above 85% as compared to the primaries in 2008.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Sanders has won in every other primary contest where turnout has been above 85% as compared to the primaries in 2008.

And the fact he's not getting voters out consistently means what exactly?

 

[wareyin]

And the fact he's not getting voters out consistently means what exactly?

This is what I keep trying to get Trakar to acknowledge. If people are so gung-ho for Sanders, such that they would stay home for Clinton yet vote in droves for him, where are they?

 

[Beeyon]

Yes, fewer voters participate in primaries than in the general election. As Sanders is not able to motivate many of the people most motivated to vote (as I understand it, primary voters are most likely to also vote in the general), claims that Clinton will depress turnout but Sanders will increase turnout seem falsified by actual voting.

If voter turnout is both a function of the election-type (primary vs general) and the candidate, it would be simple to construct a model where primary winner could cause a smaller turnout. I wouldn't personally have any confidence in such a model, but also I think it's pretty absurd to argue that turnout isn't somewhat dependent on those factors.

So yeah, it's conjecture. Not objectively false conjecture. Pretty similar to the socialist-Achilles-heel theories Clinton's side is pushing.

 

[Brainster]

This is what I keep trying to get Trakar to acknowledge. If people are so gung-ho for Sanders, such that they would stay home for Clinton yet vote in droves for him, where are they?

Suppose Hillary has the support of 55% of the Democratic voters, and Sanders has the support of 45%. Further suppose that Sanders supporters tend to be more fanatical, and (say) one-third of them would not support Hillary, while Clinton supporters tend to be more pragmatic, and only about 1/10th of them would shun Bernie if he were the nominee.

Then you have a situation where 94.5% of the Democrats would support Bernie in the general, and only 85% would support Hillary. This scenario is not hard to imagine; indeed, I have seen many Sanders supporters who claim they will not vote for Clinton in the general, while I have not yet seen a Clinton supporter who said they'd never vote for Bernie in November.

 

[varwoche]

They could stand in unison, silently. This would be a more powerful, more effective statement. Imo of course.

Liberals don't think you should tolerate bigot scum like Trump.

X feels they shouldn't tolerate Y. Y feels they shouldn't tolerate Z. It's obviously a path to madness. And it's ineffective.

 

[Trakar]

And the fact he's not getting voters out consistently means what exactly?

To me, it points out that fighting against both the party establishment and their candidate is a lot of work, this will play out over the next 2-3 months, I expect Sanders to stay in the race until the convention regardless of whether he wins, loses or fights to a draw in his bid for the Presidency.

 

[sunmaster14]

Liberals don't think you should tolerate bigot scum like Trump. Furthermore, it wasn't shut down due to safety concerns. The police did not tell him he should; they thought they could handle it. Trump is a flat out liar. He probably canceled it so he could blame protestors and play the victim.

See, now, here's the problem. If you think violence or threats of violence are just fine and dandy to shut down bigoted speech, then it means you don't support free speech, or democracy. You claim Trump is bigoted scum, and therefore we shouldn't tolerate him, but one person's bigoted scum is another person's hero. For example, I think most pro-Palestinian protesters that I see on college campuses are bigoted scum. I think hatred of Israel is almost entirely driven by antisemitism. But I don't think that gives me the right to shut down their speech. For starters, I could be wrong about my beliefs. More importantly though (because I'm not wrong), is that everybody's bigoted to varying degrees, so if you start down the slippery slope of making bigotry intolerable, in the end, nobody will be tolerated.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

No it wasn't. Republicans were already a major party. The Republican candidate came in second in the 1856 election. Before that, the Whigs were the other major party, but they collapsed over the issue of slavery and became the Republicans. Lincoln himself was a Whig until 1854.

The Republicans were made up of former Whigs and former members of the Free Soil Democratic Party (a third party), so a third party was instrumental in forming the Republicans. An analogy would be the Democratic Party falling apart and being replaced by a new party created by a coalition of left-wing Democrats (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and the Green Party (e.g. Jill Stein).

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

The Republicans were made up of former Whigs and former members of the Free Soil Democratic Party (a third party), so a third party was instrumental in forming the Republicans. An analogy would be the Democratic Party falling apart and being replaced by a new party created by a coalition of left-wing Democrats (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and the Green Party (e.g. Jill Stein).

and the Know-Nothings, who were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic.