Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

When people vote against a candidate rather than for one it is an invalid vote, as I mentioned before.

"NOT Donald Trump" as a write-in would not be a valid vote, and thus would have no impact on the election.

I meant exactly what I said, literally (not figuratively). To me, that factual information also implies conclusions which can be drawn. It was a statement of the obvious as support material. Whatever your stated motivations, any vote "against" one candidate is actually, in real terms, a vote for the other.

This is a silly glass half empty glass half full argument.

 

[Manopolus]

This is a silly glass half empty glass half full argument.

...so you disagree that a person is more likely to vote for a candidate they actually support, rather than one that they merely consider the lesser of two evils? That's the implied part of what I was saying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...so you disagree that a person is more likely to vote for a candidate they actually support, rather than one that they merely consider the lesser of two evils? That's the implied part of what I was saying.

Did I not just say your argument is nothing more than a semantic one? I thought that's what I said.

When you say lesser of two evils, how much lesser? One can be extremely motivated to vote for anyone but Trump and they might be excited about Sanders. It's a wash. Your argument is short sighted.

 

[Manopolus]

Did I not just say your argument is nothing more than a semantic one? I thought that's what I said.

When you say lesser of two evils, how much lesser? One can be extremely motivated to vote for anyone but Trump and they might be excited about Sanders. It's a wash. Your argument is short sighted.

...and if I tell you that many of Sanders' supporters also supported Ron Paul (not me, but some) in the last cycle? Yes, the traditional democrats who support Sanders will cross over easily enough, but there's a whole new demographic out there that will not, and Clinton has no such demographic. She's not appealing to any group that she didn't appeal to the last time she ran (well, other than Obama supporters, but those are arguably part of the core now -- "the youth vote" that helped Obama is now the 8 years older, and the current youth is mostly for Sanders).

 

[jimbob]

No. I voted AGAINST John McCain (actually Sarah Palin) in 2008.

Not just in the US.

The 2002 French Presidential elections were between a right of centre party and a far right party. Many socialists campaigned for the right-of-centre party and showed posters of them going to vote with clothes-pegs on their noses.

They were most definitely voting against Le Pen, rather than for Chirac

 

[Faydra]

This made me laugh....

 

[Faydra]

duplicate post... forums were begin sluggishy

 

[Mike!]

This made me laugh....

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7abkti7UphSopcl2/giphy-downsized-large.gif[/qimg]

That's awesome.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...and if I tell you that many of Sanders' supporters also supported Ron Paul (not me, but some) in the last cycle? Yes, the traditional democrats who support Sanders will cross over easily enough, but there's a whole new demographic out there that will not, and Clinton has no such demographic. She's not appealing to any group that she didn't appeal to the last time she ran (well, other than Obama supporters, but those are arguably part of the core now -- "the youth vote" that helped Obama is now the 8 years older, and the current youth is mostly for Sanders).

Looks at post I answered:

so you disagree that a person is more likely to vote for a candidate they actually support, rather than one that they merely consider the lesser of two evils?

Nope, nothing in the current post that relates to the above post or my answer..

 

[Manopolus]

Looks at post I answered:

Nope, nothing in the current post that relates to the above post or my answer..

'Round and 'round we go... The whole argument is pretty much tied together. I have neither changed topics nor my position. Apparently, you are refusing to see how it all connects? I can't figure out what you're missing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps it is you who is not communicating your point clearly. Either way, your argument that "a person is more likely to vote for a candidate they actually support, rather than one that they merely consider the lesser of two evils" is baseless.

 

[Dog Town]

'Round and 'round we go... The whole argument is pretty much tied together. I have neither changed topics nor my position. Apparently, you are refusing to see how it all connects? I can't figure out what you're missing.

Made sense to me, but I'm a reader.

 

[Manopolus]

Perhaps it is you who is not communicating your point clearly. Either way, your argument that "a person is more likely to vote for a candidate they actually support, rather than one that they merely consider the lesser of two evils" is baseless.

How else do you explain 2/3 (or more) of the population not bothering to vote then?

This sentiment seems to be a reasonable explanation to me:

 

[luchog]

How else do you explain 2/3 (or more) of the population not bothering to vote then?

Apathy and ignorance. And racist laws that exclude certain classes of voters, or make it prohibitively difficult for them to vote.

 

[Manopolus]

Apathy and ignorance. And racist laws that exclude certain classes of voters, or make it prohibitively difficult for them to vote.

Apathy, yes... but where does this apathy come from, or what can change it?

(note the edited addition above, as well)

Ignorance? No, not really. We're all ignorant about some things and knowledgeable about others. Ignorance isn't usually a character trait, and it certainly isn't a trait I'd care to pin 2/3 of the population with. That would make ME the willfully ignorant one.

 

[wareyin]

Apathy, yes... but where does this apathy come from, or what can change it?

(note the edited addition above, as well)

Ignorance? No, not really. We're all ignorant about some things and knowledgeable about others. Ignorance isn't usually a character trait, and it certainly isn't a trait I'd care to pin 2/3 of the population with. That would make ME the willfully ignorant one.

You are making the mistake of assuming that other people care about politics in general, and the politician you support in particular, much more than they demonstrably do.

 

[sunmaster14]

Apathy and ignorance. And racist laws that exclude certain classes of voters, or make it prohibitively difficult for them to vote.

Say what?

 

[Manopolus]

You are making the mistake of assuming that other people care about politics in general, and the politician you support in particular, much more than they demonstrably do.

I didn't say that the 2/3 majority of non-voters is behind Bernie, now did I? It is actually quite apparent from polling that at least a portion of it is, however. What I've been saying all along is that a goodly portion of that demographic will not likely show up for Hillary.

 

[wareyin]

I didn't say that the 2/3 majority of non-voters is behind Bernie, now did I? It is actually quite apparent from polling that at least a portion of it is, however. What I've been saying all along is that a goodly portion of that demographic will not likely show up for Hillary.

And I did not say that you did say 2/3 of non voters support Sanders. I said that you are making the mistake of assuming that those 2/3rds who don't vote care about politics as much as you do. Further, you are also making the mistake of assuming that the majority of people who do vote are as passionate about Sanders as you, despite the demonstrated reality that the majority of Democrats prefer Clinton, and you have no reason to assume that Republicans would support Sanders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Say what?

He's talking about the voter ID laws that are specifically intended to restrict minority voters. And don't bother arguing that isn't true because we all know it is.