Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bernie still believes. Or at least he's telling his minions that so the donations keep flowing.

But I don't blame him, he has to keep up the good fight, giving up would disappoint too many people.

 

[Manopolus]

Anybody can win if enough people show up to vote for him.

What is delusional is believing, without any evidence whatsoever, that enough people are going to show up to vote for Bernie to the point that he is going to turn what isn't a close race at all at this point.

The projections I have seen from Bernie supporters to convince themselves that Bernie still has chance are just flat out ridiculous. The scenarios basically call for Bernie to win every state going forward. Including double digit wins in states that Hillary is favored to win like New York and Arizona.

It is not going to happen.

Unfortunately for your argument, there are no constants in your equation. I'd be careful about calling anybody delusional.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He got 67% in Kansas, 60% in Oklahoma, 60% in New Hampshire, and The South is pretty much done voting at this point. Also, he's not going to run out of money, because he is crowd sourced, and quite a lot of that money comes from California, the last state to vote. Also, The West and New York are both pretty damn liberal.

...and it's basically halftime -- as close to the beginning as it is to the end.
<>

Please, hope all you want, that's fine.

Something MAY happen to Clinton, that's fine as well.

But please, look at the delegate count RATIONALLY when discussing Bernies chances.

 

[Manopolus]

Please, hope all you want, that's fine.

Something MAY happen to Clinton, that's fine as well.

But please, look at the delegate count RATIONALLY when discussing Bernies chances.

As I've said all along... probability ain't got nothin' to do with it. It never has, and never will. For the most part, it's just something vaguely interesting for the press to talk about when they run out of anything meaningful to say... while ignoring the fact that over fourteen thousand showed up at a Bernie rally in Salt Lake City recently. Trump's rally was only like 2000. Clinton was doing an elite fundraiser in a state that had already voted at the time.

 

[wareyin]

As I've said all along... probability ain't got nothin' to do with it. It never has, and never will. For the most part, it's just something vaguely interesting for the press to talk about when they run out of anything meaningful to say... while ignoring the fact that over fourteen thousand showed up at a Bernie rally in Salt Lake City recently. Trump's rally was only like 2000. Clinton was doing an elite fundraiser in a state that had already voted at the time.

You are ignoring the polls (again) to tout the number of people showing up at a rally. How have large rallies for Sanders in places like Ohio affected the votes or delegate count? Clinton leads Sanders by 10% nationwide, but you are counting on Sanders winning by almost 10% for the rest of the country.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it's delusional at all to believe that he'll win if enough people show up to vote for him.

Isn't that always true of any candidate?

 

[Manopolus]

You are ignoring the polls (again) to tout the number of people showing up at a rally. How have large rallies for Sanders in places like Ohio affected the votes or delegate count? Clinton leads Sanders by 10% nationwide, but you are counting on Sanders winning by almost 10% for the rest of the country.

I think I've made it perfectly clear what I think of polls. Among other things, they tend to assume that a certain percentage of people under 45 won't show up. That demographic favors Bernie by well over 70% in most places.

 

[Trakar]

Unfortunately for your argument, there are no constants in your equation. I'd be careful about calling anybody delusional.

I wouldn't get too upset about his loose employment of diagnoses he is unqualified to make, after all, you are talking to someone who's avatar is the comic book character Iron Man and whose screen name is Tony Stark.

 

[Manopolus]

Isn't that always true of any candidate?

Absolutely.

I also think that most of Clinton's crowd are the same people that vote every time, rather than anybody that is new to the process.

 

[wareyin]

I think I've made it perfectly clear what I think of polls. Among other things, they tend to assume that a certain percentage of people under 45 won't show up. That demographic favors Bernie by well over 70% in most places.

And your opinion of the polls was correct for one state so far, but wrong for the rest.

 

[Manopolus]

And your opinion of the polls was correct for one state so far, but wrong for the rest.

Not really. They adjusted the polls themselves after Michigan... and probably have again. My predictions were actually quite consistently good if you're looking at the polls that existed before Michigan voted. They were all quite a bit off except for Ohio. Polls are meaningless. They wouldn't have to constantly adjust their math otherwise.

Anyway, I'm not really in the prediction business -- it's no better than astrology even when I'm the one doing it.

 

[Tony Stark]

I wouldn't get too upset about his loose employment of diagnoses he is unqualified to make, after all, you are talking to someone who's avatar is the comic book character Iron Man and whose screen name is Tony Stark.

Coming from a "progressive" that is OK with Donald Trump becoming President of the United States instead of Hillary Clinton, this is a complement.

 

[Trakar]

Isn't that always true of any candidate?

True but most candidates don't personally raise more than a million dollars a day for going on three months now from individual donors contributing an average of 30$ when they've trailed in the delegate count and polls the entire time.

That money can go a long way when an entitled opponent shifts their attention to the general in states that are generally favorable to Sanders much more than any of the states who have already voted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think I've made it perfectly clear what I think of polls. Among other things, they tend to assume that a certain percentage of people under 45 won't show up. That demographic favors Bernie by well over 70% in most places.

And yet, that didn't come true in state after state where the polls were close to the outcome, or even better for Clinton than predicted like in Ohio.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not really. They adjusted the polls themselves after Michigan... and probably have again. My predictions were actually quite consistently good if you're looking at the polls that existed before Michigan voted. They were all quite a bit off except for Ohio. Polls are meaningless. They wouldn't have to constantly adjust their math otherwise.

What?

You got any evidence backing up that imagination of yours?

Anyway, I'm not really in the prediction business -- it's no better than astrology even when I'm the one doing it.

This I can believe.

 

[Trakar]

Coming from a "progressive" that is OK with Donald Trump becoming President of the United States instead of Hillary Clinton, this is a complement.

I'm not the one putting scare quotes around progressive and calling people delusional for not supporting a democratic opposition candidate that will likely depress the Democratic turnout and enrage an opposition response to record turnout, even though they don't much like the Republican candidate either.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm not the one putting scare quotes around progressive and calling people delusional for not supporting a democratic opposition candidate that will likely depress the Democratic turnout and enrage an opposition response to record turnout, even though they don't much like the Republican candidate either.

But you are the "progressive" that will actively harm your supposed cause by helping Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) be elected President because Hillary Clinton isn't ideologically pure enough for you.

Derp, derp, Hillary, who would probably be the most left President in a long time isn't left enough. Better to let Donald Trump win and pick 1-4 Supreme Court justices, sign bills giving massive tax cuts to the rich, repeal Obamacare, ect!!! Makes complete and perfect sense. Not.

And the people that I am calling delusional are the ones that still think that Bernie can win. Baring something happening to Hillary, he is not going to get the nomination. There is no chance he will get 60% of the rest of the delegates.

And LOL at the notion that Republicans wouldn't be motivated to vote against a self described socialist who wants to enact massive tax hikes.

 

[Trakar]

But you are "progressive" that will actively harm your supposed cause by helping Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) be elected President because Hillary Clinton isn't ideologically pure enough for you.

Derp, derp, Hillary, who would probably be the most left President in a long time isn't left enough. Better to let Donald Trump win and pick 1-4 Supreme Court justices, sign bills giving massive tax cuts to the rich, repeal Obamacare, ect!!! Makes complete and perfect sense. Not.

And the people that I am calling delusional are the ones that still think that Bernie can win. Baring something happening to Hillary, he is not going to get the nomination. There is no chance he will get 60% of the rest of the delegates.

And LOL at the notion that Republicans wouldn't be motivated to vote against a self described socialist who wants to enact massive tax hikes.

Whatever you say Mr. Stark <G>.

 

[Tony Stark]

Whatever you say Mr. Stark <G>.

Yeah, I already know that you can't argue against my logic. Because there is no actual logic in allowing Trump/Cruz to pick the next 1-4 Supreme Court justices because the Democratic candidate isn't ideologically pure enough.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I already know that you can't argue against my logic. Because there is no actual logic in allowing Trump/Cruz to pick the next 1-4 Supreme Court justices because the Democratic candidate isn't ideologically pure enough.

This ^, among other things.