Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

So... we finally have a campaign model that can potentially elect a bona fide liberal -- one that doesn't count on corporate money. You are complaining why? The only reason campaigns stopped this early in the past is because they ran out of corporate money... corporations mainly give money to whoever they think will win for the sake of potential influence (access). It's not based on ideology. In a crowd-sourced campaign, the money he gets actually is based on ideology, which means it isn't going to dry up early like most of them do.

So... the rules are different. I know. It's not what you're used to with elections. However, things actually have changed this cycle in more ways than one. It's not just a couple of unusual candidates. It's a whole different ball game. Win or lose, someone is actually going to finish the game this time, instead of quitting at halftime. Even if he loses (which is obviously a possibility), we'll better understand how to run this type of campaign the next time around.

Don't stop believing. Don't you EVER stop believing!

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

You have been given several reasons before and they were logical. The simplest one is that the short term harm is outweighed by the long term benefits. That is logical. You just disagreed with the actual weighing of the evidence.

 

[Tony Stark]

You have been given several reasons before and they were logical. The simplest one is that the short term harm is outweighed by the long term benefits. That is logical. You just disagreed with the actual weighing of the evidence.

I don't think that hoping Trump/Cruz would hurt the country enough that we could finally get people that are ideologically pure elected is logical at all. Especially since, even if that "plan" panned out, the True Progressive President/Congress could well be hamstrung by a rightwing Supreme Court.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't think that hoping Trump/Cruz would hurt the country enough that we could finally get people that are ideologically pure elected is logical at all. Especially since, even if that "plan" panned out, the True Progressive President/Congress could well be hamstrung by a rightwing Supreme Court.

Your challenge isn't to the logic, it is to the assumptions used..

 

[Trakar]

I don't think that hoping Trump/Cruz would hurt the country enough that we could finally get people that are ideologically pure elected is logical at all...

Congratulations, particularly as you are the only one seriously proposing that as a plan,...personally, regardless of your recommendations, I have no intention of voting for Trump,...or Hillary. If it makes you feel any better my vote will be equally against, them both.

 

[cullennz]

It is quite amazing how much media your election is getting over here because of Trump.

No one usually cares

It's a laugh a minute

 

[Belz...]

Whatever you say Mr. Stark <G>.

Well, will you or will you not throw your vote away if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?

 

[Manopolus]

Don't stop believing. Don't you EVER stop believing!

The truth is that campaigns don't quit when they're losing. They quit when they run out of money. Bernie isn't going to run out of money, mainly because he's crowd sourced rather than corporate funded. No one is paying him for "access." They're sending money because they agree with him.

So... might as well drop the nonsense. He won't drop out, and I strongly agree with the decision. California and New York deserve the right to make their voices heard. That's also where a hell of a lot of his money is coming from. The Former Senator from New York will probably lose her own state (not that it's actually where she comes from, anyway) by a decent margin. It might not be enough to matter, but it wouldn't make sense to just concede while he still has the means to continue.

Why is it somehow a bad thing, according to some, to not quit at halftime? We don't have the same attitude in sports, do we? Nothing in my post says that I'm certain he will win. I'm just saying let's play the freaking game out to the end before making assumptions. It is still legitimately possible for him to win -- and that's an empirically true statement. That's all I'm really sayin' here. I'm not the one making predictions. There's no need to. We'll find out the results in due time.

It's sort of like you're trying to claim the results of an experiment before getting empirical results that you will have shortly. That's not very skeptical of you. The usual best practice is to actually obtain the full results, rather than quitting halfway through the experiment. There are no mathematical equations that will adequately predict the results here, and that includes the garbage psuedoscience of political polling.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Congratulations, particularly as you are the only one seriously proposing that as a plan,...personally, regardless of your recommendations, I have no intention of voting for Trump,...or Hillary. If it makes you feel any better my vote will be equally against, them both.

But you are right on this one Tony. Trakar has no strategy.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, will you or will you not throw your vote away if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?

How is not voting for one of the two major party candidates "throwing your vote away?"

To me, it seems likely that your vote will have a greater impact going to a 3rd party candidate.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The truth is that campaigns don't quit when they're losing. They quit when they run out of money. Bernie isn't going to run out of money, mainly because he's crowd sourced rather than corporate funded. No one is paying him for "access." They're sending money because they agree with him.

So... might as well drop the nonsense. He won't drop out, and I strongly agree with the decision. California and New York deserve the right to make their voices heard. That's also where a hell of a lot of his money is coming from. The Former Senator from New York will probably lose her own state (not that it's actually where she comes from, anyway) by a decent margin. It might not be enough to matter, but it wouldn't make sense to just concede while he still has the means to continue.

Why is it somehow a bad thing, according to some, to not quit at halftime? We don't have the same attitude in sports, do we? Nothing in my post says that I'm certain he will win. I'm just saying let's play the freaking game out to the end before making assumptions. It is still legitimately possible for him to win -- and that's an empirically true statement. That's all I'm really sayin' here. I'm not the one making predictions. There's no need to. We'll find out the results in due time.

It's sort of like you're trying to claim the results of an experiment before getting empirical results that you will have shortly. That's not very skeptical of you. The usual best practice is to actually obtain the full results, rather than quitting halfway through the experiment. There are no mathematical equations that will adequately predict the results here, and that includes the garbage psuedoscience of political polling.

Are you familiar with the term "dead ender"?

 

[varwoche]

The Former Senator from New York will probably lose her own state

That shimmering inner surface of the Bernie bubble is positively mesmerizing! The latest poll has Clinton ahead by 48 points.

 

[Manopolus]

That shimmering inner surface of the Bernie bubble is positively mesmerizing! The latest poll has Clinton ahead by 48 points.

http://www.theecps.com/#!methodology/c1iwz

Through the use of a screening question, we usually seek out "likely voters" which has been shown to give a much more representative sample of the populations for most political polling.

In other words, psuedoscience.

Sorry, but you can't screen for who and who is not going to show up. Period. All you're going to get from that is the people that always show up -- which is exactly what the question described does. It screens out first time voters. The polls are freaking meaningless, as I've always said.

If a poll simply asked who you support and left out the part about trying to decide whether they think you're going to show up, we'd have a vastly different result. Let's see that poll. Oh, there isn't one... at least not one that has been released to the public and reported in the press.

The methodology itself so obviously skews towards Clinton that a 5-year-old could see it.

Here's a little more proof:

For the Presidential Polling Initiative the following Methodology will be employed. First, all respondents who did not finish the survey is eliminated, then anyone who finished the survey in under 4 minutes is eliminated (based on 2 standard deviations and length of survey). If respondent said they did not vote in 2012 they are eliminated because prior voting behavior is the best predictor of future voting behaivor. Finally, using a rim weighting the results are weighted based on 2012 final election returns either nationally or by state depending on the sample and then by region (percentage of electoral vote for each region or total vote if it is a statewide poll).

Also, it was done by robo-call, which is a bit self-selecting to say the least. Also, since we don't have the questions, how the hell do I know that this isn't one of the Clintons' standard push-polling tactics? I don't. If it was, anyone that recognized it as such would have likely hung up before finishing it.

That isn't to say that fixation on polling isn't a good campaign tactic in the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. It is. That's about all that it is. It's a great way to try to end elections with the front-runner winning by suppressing the turnout of the opponent. That may not be the intent (in some cases -- couldn't say), but that is what actually happens. That's what "momentum" in an election actually is.

This part bears repeating:

If respondent said they did not vote in 2012 they are eliminated because prior voting behavior is the best predictor of future voting behaivor.

 

[uke2se]

http://www.theecps.com/#!methodology/c1iwz



In other words, psuedoscience.

Ok, so you don't trust polling. What's your evidence that Clinton will lose NY?

 

[Belz...]

How is not voting for one of the two major party candidates "throwing your vote away?"

A good question.

The third party isn't going to win. Voting for it is not going to bring it to power. Of the two remaining parties that have a chance, there is a good argument to be made that you should vote for the lesser evil, if you have no actual favourite, so that at least the greater evil has less chance of getting the White House. Not doing so is like not casting your vote.

In fact, it's worse, since if enough people vote for the third party, they allow congress to determine who gets the presidency.

 

[varwoche]

Nope. Just watch.

This is the same sort of thing you were predicting about the March 15 contests, in which Bernie was blitzed.

Very Black Knight like.

 

[Manopolus]

Ok, so you don't trust polling. What's your evidence that Clinton will lose NY?

I think I've established that the most recent poll claiming that she's way ahead is perfectly meaningless. That's good enough for me. As far as what I've got suggesting otherwise, let's just go with the fact that it's a very liberal state, and Sanders is well to the left of Clinton.

 

[varwoche]

I think I've established that the most recent poll claiming that she's way ahead is perfectly meaningless. That's good enough for me. As far as what I've got suggesting otherwise, let's just go with the fact that it's a very liberal state, and Sanders is well to the left of Clinton.

I'm not familiar with this pollster nor their methodology, so I'm not defending them. That said, you've established precisely nothing.

The one other NY poll on RCP also shows a large Clinton lead by the way.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm not familiar with this pollster nor their methodology, so I'm not defending them. That said, you've established precisely nothing.

The one other NY poll on RCP also shows a large Clinton lead by the way.

Well, that was the one that had her ahead "by 48 points" as you originally said. A quick glance at the other one gives Sanders a higher favorability rating than Clinton, which suggests to me that perhaps it has some of the same flaws in its conclusions. They're assuming that Sanders' most notable demographic won't show up, essentially. I'm not going to bother looking too deeply unless you insist. I'm pretty sure you are capable of researching it for yourself.

 

[varwoche]

Well, that was the one that had her ahead "by 48 points" as you originally said.

No comprendo. One poll has her up by 48, the older poll has her up by 21. Neither supports your fact-free opinion, arm-waving notwithstanding.