Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Manopolus]

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.

Oh, it's not even just that. It's aimed at suppressing the youth vote by making it harder to re-register after you move (young people tend to be more mobile), and also makes it harder to register for the first time. The GOP is perfectly fine with the idea of most votes coming from the over-50 crowd. Also, people in large cities are less likely to need a driver's license to get around -- so they're sort of suppressing the urban vote as well.

It's not just race. There are all sorts of dynamics that benefit the GOP going on here.

Consider even perhaps that people that have lived in multiple locations tend to be a little more liberal in their politics. Conservatives have more of a tendency to more-or-less stay home and have excessive loyalty to their roots, particularly if you're talking about rural areas. That often means that they stay put and don't have to re-register. If you make people show a birth certificate to do so (as recent changes in Kansas and elsewhere require), you're going to affect primarily the more mobile part of the population.

Any way you look at it, increasing the requirements for documentation benefits the GOP in an unfair manner.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Now you're just being obtuse. I've given you an example of voting against a candidate. Of course this means you're technically voting for another, but the reason for your vote is to not vote for the other person. Do you understand this?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

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

Oh, you must be referring to these blatantly unfair and "racist laws":

1) To vote in a federal election in the United States, you must be a U.S. citizen.

2) Individuals convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated or on parole.

Admittedly, the elimination of these "racist laws" would ensure the Democrats a landslide victory.

 

[Manopolus]

Now you're just being obtuse. I've given you an example of voting against a candidate. Of course this means you're technically voting for another, but the reason for your vote is to not vote for the other person. Do you understand this?

I think I've made it quite clear that I understand the difference between my literal statement of fact and what you misread it as.

Do you?

Admittedly, they're connected (as in, one gives support to the other -- not exclusively, but as a trend or rule of thumb sort of a thing). However, the literal interpretation was the intended one. Yes, some people WILL vote for the "lesser of two evils." Some also won't. There will likely also be plenty that don't believe that Hillary resembles that description. On some specific measures, Bernie resembles Trump more than he does Hillary.

 

[Trakar]

Oh, it's not even just that. It's aimed at suppressing the youth vote by making it harder to re-register after you move (young people tend to be more mobile), and also makes it harder to register for the first time. The GOP is perfectly fine with the idea of most votes coming from the over-50 crowd...

The GOP isn't alone in courting that demographic, there are establishment candidate front-runners who wouldn't be front-runners without that demographic

 

[tyr_13]

How many Trump supporters have been infiltrating Sanders' events, trying to get them shut down?

Many more are about to start. It will lead to violence as the goal here is to get some bloody shirts to wave.

I predict the chances are very good to see some actual attacks on Sanders rallies now.

EDIT: In fact, another poster threatened just that in the 'skirmish' thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, you must be referring to these blatantly unfair and "racist laws":

1) To vote in a federal election in the United States, you must be a U.S. citizen.

2) Individuals convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated or on parole.

Admittedly, the elimination of these "racist laws" would ensure the Democrats a landslide victory.

Nope, not those laws. Voter suppression laws where you require a DMV ID then close all the DMV offices in black neighborhoods.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, you must be referring to these blatantly unfair and "racist laws":

1) To vote in a federal election in the United States, you must be a U.S. citizen.

2) Individuals convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated or on parole.

Admittedly, the elimination of these "racist laws" would ensure the Democrats a landslide victory.

We used to criticize the USSR for requiring internal passports. Now we do.

 

[mgidm86]

Oh, it's not even just that. It's aimed at suppressing the youth vote by making it harder to re-register after you move (young people tend to be more mobile), and also makes it harder to register for the first time. The GOP is perfectly fine with the idea of most votes coming from the over-50 crowd. Also, people in large cities are less likely to need a driver's license to get around -- so they're sort of suppressing the urban vote as well.

It's not just race. There are all sorts of dynamics that benefit the GOP going on here.

Consider even perhaps that people that have lived in multiple locations tend to be a little more liberal in their politics. Conservatives have more of a tendency to more-or-less stay home and have excessive loyalty to their roots, particularly if you're talking about rural areas. That often means that they stay put and don't have to re-register. If you make people show a birth certificate to do so (as recent changes in Kansas and elsewhere require), you're going to affect primarily the more mobile part of the population.

Any way you look at it, increasing the requirements for documentation benefits the GOP in an unfair manner.

That's a whole lot of assuming there! Sounds like a conspiracy!

 

[Manopolus]

That's a whole lot of assuming there! Sounds like a conspiracy!

In this case, it is one that is actually happening. I can't remember who exactly, but there was a Republican lawmaker in either Georgia or Alabama (I think) that fully admitted that this is the reason why they were doing it. He just felt for some reason that they had every right to do whatever helps them get a victory.

It's sort of like gerrymandering -- it undermines democracy, but some people think that anything that isn't explicitly against the rules should be okay. You know, it's sort of like the way that self-described libertarians and conservatives like to treat money -- despite also claiming that money itself somehow conveys morality (and yes, the two notions are as incompatible as I've suggested).

When it comes right down to it, there's no way in hell that the state can't find out whether I'm a citizen or not completely independent of my providing a birth certificate (actually, in my case it was a DD214 that I provided). Seriously, think about it. The state has every capability of verifying that without my assistance. I know that for a FACT in my case specifically -- through multiple channels, and I'm pretty sure that they can also verify citizenship in a timely manner regarding just about anyone else, as well.

HELLO -- I do have a Social Security number that is provided for just about everything else -- including any job I apply for. Yes, someone else could use my SSN and pretend they are me, but then, someone else could also use my birth certificate or DD214 in the same manner. I'm not even talking about showing the stupid card, here. I'm talking about providing the SSN along with other information that is already tied to it, like birth date and name.

 

[Trakar]

Military Times Survey

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10613

Combined Forces
HRC =11.17%
Senator Sanders = 21.91%
Cruz = 16.7%
Rubio = 9.33%
Donald Trump = 26.9%

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10615
Navy
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10616
Air Force
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10617
Marines
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10614
Army

Enough said

Almost -- Navy and Army Air Corps are downright socialistic!

 

[Manopolus]

Almost -- Navy and Army Air Corps are downright socialistic!

I don't know if you meant it this way, but yes, the military systems are indeed socialistic. They have socialized medicine, socialized housing, socialized food, socialized dentistry, socialized legal representation, etc. The money for this is all supplied by your taxes (and yes, they pay taxes too).

A fully socialized system probably wouldn't look all that different from American military life, during peace time, on a major base. All your basic needs/bills/emergencies are taken care of by the system (without needing insurance), and what is left is yours to save or spend however you please. That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

Hell, the military even has "socialized" burial. Any military personnel or even any veterans can be buried free of charge at the nearest military base -- no undertaker or cemetery plot purchasing required. Most don't take advantage of that anymore for some reason, but it's still available.

 

[Trakar]

I don't know if you meant it this way, but yes, the military systems are indeed socialistic. They have socialized medicine, socialized housing, socialized food, socialized dentistry, socialized legal representation, etc. The money for this is all supplied by your taxes (and yes, they pay taxes too).

A fully socialized system probably wouldn't look all that different from American military life.

Not quite the analogy that most would appreciate, or desire. But, I understand and concur with your intent.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, some people WILL vote for the "lesser of two evils." Some also won't.

Wow. That is a useful tautology.

 

[BenBurch]

Looks like today will be a very good day.

 

[luchog]

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,

The majority of Southern democrats. Sanders is beating Clinton in the northern states so far; and a lot more states outside the South have yet to vote. It's still too early to say which candidate the majority of Democrats prefer. After today's primary, we'll have a better idea; but it still won't be conclusive until California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington vote; particularly California, since CA has more delegates than the two next largest states combined, is likely to heavily favour Sanders, and does not vote until June. It's possible Clinton may pick up a conclusive lead before the, particularly since she's almost guaranteed to get Florida, although she needs a huge margin there, and moderately large margins in the rest of the states, to make it conclusive. I doubt she'll get that large a margin in Florida, though she likely will in Missouri and North Carolina given her record in conservative Southern states so far; and is likely to loose Illinois and Ohio to Sanders by a small margin. That will increase her lead; but that will still not be conclusive, given the number of delegates at stake in the west and northwest, which are currently leaning strongly to Sanders. Unless there is a major upset either way, this one is going to come down to the wire.

and you have no reason to assume that Republicans would support Sanders.

Except for the large number of moderate Republicans who have already said they will if Trump gets the nomination. Unfortunately, there are also a small number of conservative Democrats who have stated that they will vote for Trump, and a smaller number for Kasich, if Clinton gets the nod.

 

[wareyin]

The majority of Southern democrats. Sanders is beating Clinton in the northern states so far; and a lot more states outside the South have yet to vote. It's still too early to say which candidate the majority of Democrats prefer. After today's primary, we'll have a better idea; but it still won't be conclusive until California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington vote; particularly California, since CA has more delegates than the two next largest states combined, is likely to heavily favour Sanders, and does not vote until June. It's possible Clinton may pick up a conclusive lead before the, particularly since she's almost guaranteed to get Florida, although she needs a huge margin there, and moderately large margins in the rest of the states, to make it conclusive. I doubt she'll get that large a margin in Florida, though she likely will in Missouri and North Carolina given her record in conservative Southern states so far; and is likely to loose Illinois and Ohio to Sanders by a small margin. That will increase her lead; but that will still not be conclusive, given the number of delegates at stake in the west and northwest, which are currently leaning strongly to Sanders. Unless there is a major upset either way, this one is going to come down to the wire.




Except for the large number of moderate Republicans who have already said they will if Trump gets the nomination. Unfortunately, there are also a small number of conservative Democrats who have stated that they will vote for Trump, and a smaller number for Kasich, if Clinton gets the nod.

Are you unaware that Clinton has consistently led Sanders in nationwide polling, in addition to heavily leading him among delegates?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It's possible Clinton may pick up a conclusive lead before the, particularly since she's almost guaranteed to get Florida,

Odd that Florida isn't siding with the elderly Jewish man from New York. There's a lot of votes that could be swung there by millenial grandsons just picking up the phone once in a while, would it kill them?

Except for the large number of moderate Republicans who have already said they will if Trump gets the nomination. Unfortunately, there are also a small number of conservative Democrats who have stated that they will vote for Trump, and a smaller number for Kasich, if Clinton gets the nod.

"Bernie or else Trump" is not a very conservative stance. I don't know how applicable the liberal/conservative dichotomy will even be after this election. Both parties are being reshaped by the influence of outsider candidates into a new configuration of the political tree: with the Dems closer to their roots, and the GOP nearer to the nuts.

 

[catsmate]

I am expecting they will find a way to procedurally screw The Donald, have a brokered convention, and nominate Mitt. Which would be a great improvement.

That would be amusing, assuming Trump had a tantrum and ran independently.

 

[luchog]

"Bernie or else Trump" is not a very conservative stance. I don't know how applicable the liberal/conservative dichotomy will even be after this election. Both parties are being reshaped by the influence of outsider candidates into a new configuration of the political tree: with the Dems closer to their roots, and the GOP nearer to the nuts.

Which is why I've been saying all along that this fight isn't really a conservative vs. liberal one. It's clearly establishment vs. outsider, machine politics vs. populism. That's the reason both Sanders and Trump are doing as well as they are, they're able to tap into the dissatisfaction with establishment politics and politicians like Clinton and Cruz and Rubio, provide a populist message, and mobilize a voter base that has all but given up on the establishment.

Unfortunately, Trump has been more effective at doing so with his appeal to fear and the darker aspects of American culture; while Sanders' appeal to voters' better nature and optimism has been somewhat overshadowed by Clinton's fearmongering, and further limited by restricted exposure in the popular press.