• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manopolus said:
The problem is that half the damn polls still overwhelmingly rely on home phones. Young people don't have home phones. The polls are therefore meaningless. None of the contests coming up are going to be anywhere near what the polls say. The South was a gimme for Clinton. Everywhere else is not.

Seriously, after Michigan you still think the polls have meaning? They don't.
Click to expand...
Not any more. The polls note what proportion of land lines and cell phones they call and most of them have a balance and they have a weighted formula to match the demographics to the actual voting population.

One thing that messes some polls up are not accounting for new voters and independents depending on the data base their random samples come from.
 
Tony Stark said:
So black people (and whites who weren't racist) during the Jim Crow era should have just tolerated the racists? Just hope that things would get better? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government making the confederate states end Jim Crow laws)?

Gays (and straight people who weren't homophobes) should have just tolerated homophobia? Hope it goes away on its own? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government forcing states to end laws against sodomy and same sex marriage and the majority of the public on their side)?
Click to expand...

None of those laws violate the First Amendment. You can still say all the homophobic and racist stuff you want.

Tony Stark said:
In which case that new party would become one of the two major parties that could win a Presidential election.
Click to expand...

Egg-zuh-hacktly.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
None of those laws violate the First Amendment. You can still say all the homophobic and racist stuff you want.



Egg-zuh-hacktly.
Click to expand...
But it is not considered socially acceptable to most people. And more importantly, bigots largely (or at least as much as they used to) cannot oppress people. Because oppressed people (and their allies) decided not to tolerate the bigotry any more.

**** Donald Trump and **** his supporters.
 
Another tough day for Bernie. Hillary scores twice as many delegates in the Northern Mariana Islands. Of course, in Bernieland that's called a tie.
 
Brainster said:
No, this is wrong. Peaceful protest is absolutely permitted under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I used the word "disrupt" not protest. Even in public spaces, protesters are not allowed to disrupt, obstruct, or detain others. On private property, where most political rallies happen, the owner of the property (or the lessor) sets the rules. Trump's campaign almost certainly had the right to toss disruptive people (or anybody really) from the property, and if they don't obey a request to leave with alacrity, they are guilty of trespass and/or disorderly conduct.

What I'm not clear on is whether its possible to legally bind a protester even before a request to leave has been made. I suppose it's possible for the campaign to set up a screening process whereby an attendee pledges not to engage in disruptive behavior (including simply holding up a negative sign) in order to gain entry to an event. If the protester then engages in proscribed conduct, it would then be a breach of contract, subject to a civil suit.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I used the word "disrupt" not protest. Even in public spaces, protesters are not allowed to disrupt, obstruct, or detain others. On private property, where most political rallies happen, the owner of the property (or the lessor) sets the rules. Trump's campaign almost certainly had the right to toss disruptive people (or anybody really) from the property, and if they don't obey a request to leave with alacrity, they are guilty of trespass and/or disorderly conduct.

What I'm not clear on is whether its possible to legally bind a protester even before a request to leave has been made. I suppose it's possible for the campaign to set up a screening process whereby an attendee pledges not to engage in disruptive behavior (including simply holding up a negative sign) in order to gain entry to an event. If the protester then engages in proscribed conduct, it would then be a breach of contract, subject to a civil suit.
Click to expand...
Trump is constantly tossing people from his rallies. And complaining that they can't be arrested.

And I would have no problem going to a Trump rally, signing some kind of agreement to not protest him, and do it anyway. So would lots of other people. Would he actually be dumb enough to sue us? One could only hope. Somehow, I think that most people wouldn't like it if a billionaire Presidential candidate sues a bunch of people for protesting him.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I used the word "disrupt" not protest. Even in public spaces, protesters are not allowed to disrupt, obstruct, or detain others.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And gloating about stopping a Trump rally sounds... Trumpish (or is it Trumpy?). Getting unpalatable candidates is the downside of democracy, and it's a problem you can't solve without tossing democracy out the window.

What's more, I'm not sure what stopping Trump rallies is supposed to accomplish. They are not the problem, the problem is his popularity. Dealing with that by disrupting the rallies is like putting a band-aid on a gangrene.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
The problem is that half the damn polls still overwhelmingly rely on home phones. Young people don't have home phones. The polls are therefore meaningless. None of the contests coming up are going to be anywhere near what the polls say. The South was a gimme for Clinton. Everywhere else is not.

Seriously, after Michigan you still think the polls have meaning? They don't.

Shall we visit the discussion again AFTER March 15? I expect this comment to be quite plainly reflected in the results... and I said the same damn things about Michigan. It's the same everywhere else. Bernie didn't win The South partially because he never campaigned there -- and the reason he didn't is because he didn't have much support there to begin with. If you think he didn't know what he was doing... umm... well, you're wrong.

It's sort of like what I heard Robert Reich say in a live feed the other day -- political pollsters are there to make astrologers look good. Nothing they're saying has any bearing on the actual election, particularly in a population that is skeptical of the current press. In the past, perhaps reporting about polls created a self-fulfilling prophecy, but they never really had much meaning to begin with. It's about who shows up, which is information that polling can't provide. Less than 10% of registered party members tend to show up even in a good year.

I think people are starting to realize/point out that it's the wrong damn conversation to be having to begin with... so the usual bandwagonning is losing its power to affect the results. In a "political revolution" such as the one that Sanders is trying to create, turnout favors the outsider (same is true of Trump, BTW). I expect that trend to continue in the general, BTW... which means that we're in a lot of trouble if we go with Hillary.
Click to expand...

Michigan was way off, yes. Have any other primaries or caucuses been off by more than the margin of error? You are putting too much stock into an anomaly becoming the new normal. Perhaps you will turn out to be correct, but I'm going to go with people like Nate Silver until such time.
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of posturing about never voting for Clinton, but I suspect that a lot of those people will realize how bad a Trump presidency will be, and not follow through with their pledge. Heck, we already have Republicans already saying that Clinton will be better than Trump for the country, combined with the Democrats. (cue standard they're all the same/Clinton is a right-leaning candidate rant from the usual suspects)
 
Hillary Feels the Bern!

http://time.com/4256782/snl-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/

...Clinton, played by Kate McKinnon, acknowledges at the beginning of the fake commercial that “so many” young people have a voice in this year’s election. “Luckily, I, Hilary Clinton, share all of your exact, same beliefs. And I always have,” McKinnon says before blasting millionaires and billionaires in Sanders’ heavy Brooklyn accent.

“I’ve always said that, ever since I was a young boy growing up in Brooklyn,” she says. McKinnon’s Clinton slowly transforms into the borough-reared Sanders, donning a suit, a white wig and glasses at the end of the short sketch. “I’m whoever you want me to be and I approve this message,” she says. “I’m trying here, guys.”...
Click to expand...
 
wareyin said:
I've seen a lot of posturing about never voting for Clinton, but I suspect that a lot of those people will realize how bad a Trump presidency will be, and not follow through with their pledge. Heck, we already have Republicans already saying that Clinton will be better than Trump for the country, combined with the Democrats. (cue standard they're all the same/Clinton is a right-leaning candidate rant from the usual suspects)
Click to expand...

You know who else postured about not voting for the party choice, don't you? (No, not Hitler.) Hillary supporters in 2008. It's a tradition in the Dem party any time there's a hotly contested primary. It sank the Dems for several decades after the '68 debacle.
 
varwoche said:
False dilemma fallacy.

Contemplate the (presumed) fact that you can't show me one single instance where MLK tried to shout down opponents. That might help you see things more clearly.
Click to expand...
Tony, can you cite one, lonely, solitary instance when MLK shouted down opponents, or exhorted others to do same? (Answer = no). In this light, have you reconsidered the absurd position you staked out here?
 
varwoche said:
Tony, can you cite one, lonely, solitary instance when MLK shouted down opponents, or exhorted others to do same? (Answer = no). In this light, have you reconsidered the absurd position you staked out here?
Click to expand...
Didn't even bother to look. The post in question was in response to your absurd position that not tolerating bigotry is madness and ineffective. It is not and had worked in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom