Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Manopolus]

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.

The favorability rating gives a lot better picture of how many supporters they actually have than something that ignores people that didn't vote last time. Sanders beats Clinton in favorability in just about every poll out there that measures it.

They don't generally release the data on raw polling before they throw in the fixes that are going to obviously go for Clinton, given what we know of the demographics. A populist campaign supported strongly by the youth (favored by people under 45 by over 70%) isn't going to tend to conform to this type of polling in its results (well, except as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I've mentioned).

If it weren't for people having to work that are unable to make it to the polls, I'd be more certain of a Sanders win. Hillary's best asset is the fact that she's favored by people that are retired.

 

[uke2se]

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.

So when you say it looks like Clinton will lose, you really mean that you wish she would lose?

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk

 

[Childlike Empress]

Bernie Sanders says he will not attend AIPAC conference

Tsk, tsk. Well, they will have Teh Donald telling them again that he doesn't want their money, and of course Cruz, Kasich and Killary kissing their rear ends, so it should be a nice event anyway.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Doing this, however, consistently, abrogates any need for either of the two major parties to actually shift or adjust their policies to capture your actual votes. They merely need to put forth candidates that have a degree of separation so that regardless of what an individual actually prefers one or the other of the two establishment candidates are a slightly lessor evil regardless of whether you have a progressive or conservative perspective. You end up with the current situation. where no real progress is ever made no real progress is ever afforded and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and all the societal problems are continuously juggled to keep everyone plugged into the rigged game. During the election, those who are the most mad or scared wins the white House and the game continues as before. The trump really isn't scary enough to elect a Democratic candidate that royally pisses off anyone with the slightest conservative inclination, especially when she doesn't inspire and excite the Left. It isn't those who support Sanders that will elect Trump, it is those who don't understand how much Hillary is reviled and are determined for her to be the Democratic nominee that will hand Trump the White House.

 

[Trakar]

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

NY will come down to turnout. The same is true with all the big states from here on out. Specifically New York (with 291 delegates), Pennsylvania (with 210 delegates), and California (with 545 delegates - the three western coastal states alone (CA, OR, WA) are worth a total of 740 delegates). Hillary is currently ahead of Sanders by around 200 pledged delegates. If Sanders does as well in the remaining states as he has in all of the other (non-deep South) states so far, It will be a very close nomination race. If he does better on average, especially in the larger delegate states He has a strong shot of either winning outright, or at the least causing a convention floor vote by keeping either candidate from achieving the votes needed to win outright.

If Democratic turnout can be kept low and unenthusiastic, Hillary has a chance to win the nomination outright by the 20th of April. But any such confluence of events will also signal that whoever the Republican nominee is, will probably occupy the White House in 2017, as an unenthusiastic reduced Democratic turnout will not enable a weak Democratic candidate to defeat the excited record turnout (thus far in the Republican primaries) in November. Republican establishment may not like Trump, but they like him a lot more than they like Hillary, and Republican primary voters have been breaking turnout records for the last 3 months, and there is no sign of this falling off so far.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Bernie Sanders says he will not attend AIPAC conference

Tsk, tsk. Well, they will have Teh Donald telling them again that he doesn't want their money, and of course Cruz, Kasich and Killary kissing their rear ends, so it should be a nice event anyway.

I'm very interested to see what Trump does. This (I don't need your money) is the default for Teh Donald, but the question is how he views Israel-US relations. If he takes no money, but throws out some right wing Likud Party bombast at their shin-dig, then he buys their support without costing them a dime.

Who knows, we'll see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

NY will come down to turnout. The same is true with all the big states from here on out. ....

And this didn't happen in Ohio, why?

 

[Manopolus]

And this didn't happen in Ohio, why?

Trump vs Kasich, mostly. In Ohio (and a few other places) you can vote in either primary, regardless of which party you are registered for. Kasich is the Governor of Ohio. Also, the Republican primary is the one that is totally off track into the lands of complete insanity. All of the local press and the locals in general were fixated on the other contest.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You end up with the current situation. where no real progress is ever made

How can you say this? Trillions to the banks, not one executive held to account, the bubble of bad paper is still there...

Look at the scoreboard too: a few thousand dead for the home team and millions of bad guys. We're killing at 1,000:1

I think it's hard to see progress when each day we take such small steps. The Federal Reserve is going to act responsibly and print no more than a billion a day for the bankers to pocket, and we might drone a hundred people here and there - but for the most part we're just killing by the dozen.

But it adds up, it really does. In the early 1960's as a boy I listened to the nightly Huntley-Brinkley report telling me how many VC we killed that day.

I'm still listening to it. Half a century of perpetual war. When we weren't involved directly, we were funding coups, arming paramilitaries, etc.

Right now these geniuses have got the middle east into a raging cyclone, and we're allied with the most radical Wahabbist head-chopper dictatorship on earth.

The insiders have done this to us. Hillary and McCain both met with the Syrian opposition to "Vet" them personally. They gave them money, arms - and that long line of Toyota trucks with heavy guns mounted on them was the result. ISIS. Saudi Arabia (Qatar and others too) funded the proto-ISIS and gave it the theological underpinning for their violent version of Jihad. There is no moderate way to chop heads.

This is progress. Aligning ourselves with moderate head choppers.

 

[ddt]

NY will come down to turnout. The same is true with all the big states from here on out. Specifically New York (with 291 247 delegates), Pennsylvania (with 210 189 delegates), and California (with 545 475 delegates - the three western coastal states alone (CA, OR, WA) are worth a total of 740 637 delegates). Hillary is currently ahead of Sanders by around 200 326 pledged delegates.

FTFY. Numbers courtesy this 538 page. All numbers exclude super-delegates.

If Sanders does as well in the remaining states as he has in all of the other (non-deep South) states so far, It will be a very close nomination race. If he does better on average, especially in the larger delegate states He has a strong shot of either winning outright, or at the least causing a convention floor vote by keeping either candidate from achieving the votes needed to win outright.

No, that's not the case. That 538 page does try to model how well Bernie appeals to different demographics, and you see that even then, he has underperformed compared to the calculated targets, and nowhere has significantly outperformed them. It's just not realistic to think he will outperform them in the rest to make up for the difference thus far. I'd like Bernie to win, but at this point I think it's a pipe dream.

Note that you underestimated Bernie's trailing and overestimated the numbers of delegates in the states you mentioned.

 

[ddt]

Bernie Sanders says he will not attend AIPAC conference

Tsk, tsk. Well, they will have Teh Donald telling them again that he doesn't want their money, and of course Cruz, Kasich and Killary kissing their rear ends, so it should be a nice event anyway.

You forgot to add that apparently, Bernie is a self-hating Jew.

And with a bit more seriousness: it's remarkable that the only presidential hopeful in years who skips the AIPAC conference is a Jew, and conversely, the only Jewish presidential hopeful in years skips the AIPAC conference.

 

[wareyin]

NY will come down to turnout. The same is true with all the big states from here on out. Specifically New York (with 291 delegates), Pennsylvania (with 210 delegates), and California (with 545 delegates - the three western coastal states alone (CA, OR, WA) are worth a total of 740 delegates). Hillary is currently ahead of Sanders by around 200 pledged delegates. If Sanders does as well in the remaining states as he has in all of the other (non-deep South) states so far, It will be a very close nomination race. If he does better on average, especially in the larger delegate states He has a strong shot of either winning outright, or at the least causing a convention floor vote by keeping either candidate from achieving the votes needed to win outright.

If Democratic turnout can be kept low and unenthusiastic, Hillary has a chance to win the nomination outright by the 20th of April. But any such confluence of events will also signal that whoever the Republican nominee is, will probably occupy the White House in 2017, as an unenthusiastic reduced Democratic turnout will not enable a weak Democratic candidate to defeat the excited record turnout (thus far in the Republican primaries) in November. Republican establishment may not like Trump, but they like him a lot more than they like Hillary, and Republican primary voters have been breaking turnout records for the last 3 months, and there is no sign of this falling off so far.

You are off by over 100 pledged delegates. 1172-846 equals Clinton is up by 326 pledged delegates. But don't let a trivial error like being off by 63% get in the way of your delegate math.



eta: ninja'd by ddt in post 3750.

 

[dudalb]

It has to be repeated:A vote for a Third Party Candidate this year is a de facto vote for Trump.
Normally I don't mind protest votes, but Trump is a clear and present danger,the most dangerous political figute we have seen in our lifetime

 

[Trakar]

You are off by over 100 pledged delegates. 1172-846 equals Clinton is up by 326 pledged delegates. But don't let a trivial error like being off by 63% get in the way of your delegate math.



eta: ninja'd by ddt in post 3750.

I was speaking in rough terms based on the quick link I looked at.

A more precise count at http://ap.org/products-services/elections/FAQs

Shows 1,147 830
which roughly indicates about 300 delegate difference or precisely 317

Now, this substantively changes anything of import in my previous post, how?

 

[Trakar]

It has to be repeated:A vote for a Third Party Candidate this year is a de facto vote for Trump.
Normally I don't mind protest votes, but Trump is a clear and present danger,the most dangerous political figute we have seen in our lifetime

And a vote for Hillary says that her warmongering and fiscal conservatism and willingness to sell out progressive values to secure bipartisan consensus represents the best course forward for our nation how?

Personally, I feel that Trump is just as duplicitous in his campaigning as Hillary has been. He represents a self-financed, egotistical blowhard trying to win the nomination of an ideologically extremist Republican base, how would you suggest that he proceed to secure that nomination?

 

[wareyin]

I was speaking in rough terms based on the quick link I looked at.

A more precise count at http://ap.org/products-services/elections/FAQs

Shows 1,147 830
which roughly indicates about 300 delegate difference or precisely 317

Now, this substantively changes anything of import in my previous post, how?

When you say "more precise", does that mean "link that does not show a delegate count"? Further, using outdated numbers to make your guy look better is...not impressive.

Also your post drastically understates how badly Sanders is behind, while overstating the delegates available (in states that Sanders is polling behind in, by double digits: NY Clinton +34.5, PA Clinton +23.3, CA Clinton +13.5). Do you still need an explanation as to whether this changes your post substantially?

 

[jimbob]

I know I'm going to be accused of a middle-ground fallacy here; but I don't think the situation is as black-and-white as criminal psychopath vs. conspiracy theory.

There is definitely indication that she has been rather cavalier with many of her actions involving intelligence and security; though the investigation for at least one of those actions is still ongoing. And she has supported some rather questionable actions by the US government, including the Iraq war and ongoing drone strikes in the Middle East, which some seem to believe would be enough to qualify her as a war criminal (which same can be said about the last two presidents and most of Congress at this point). How much of that is deliberate, how much is incompetence, and how much is just blowing with the political wind remains to be seen.

That's pretty much where I think it is likely to be, thanks...

Really? So you've been under the impression that I vote for Nader and Green Party candidates because I think that they will win?
Not at all. In fact, I admit that most of the political movements and candidates that I support have long odds. Although I don't support Sanders, I always said that he had only a slim chance, due to the party he's in. He's surprised me, because he actually got a lot further than I expected him to.

I was talking to colleagues about this in reference to UK politics, but the best examples I can think of are from the US.

Ideological purity is no good if it doesn't achieve anything, politics is the art of the possible.

I don't think that many people believe that Obamacare is the healthcare reform that Obama would have chosen to implement if he had a completely acquiescent Congress and Senate. It certainly faced a lot of opposition, particularly from the Right, so if Obama hadn't been elected, there is no reason to suppose that anything as good as Obamacare would have been implemented.

Holding out for a candidate who achieves nothing but let someone else in with opposing views isn't very effective in my view.

 

[Belz...]

Doing this, however, consistently, abrogates any need for either of the two major parties to actually shift or adjust their policies to capture your actual votes.

I understand that, and I personally feel like it's much better, on principle, to vote for the candidate or party you agree with, but I'm saying that regardless, voting for a party that cannot win is throwing your vote away at least for that election in particular.

 

[Trakar]

FTFY. Numbers courtesy this 538 page. All numbers exclude super-delegates...

Thank-you for the correction, I was purposely including super delegates in future states as they tend to predominantly follow the large majority winner.
In the total count, the super delegates will only come into play at the convention, and whoever has the majority of the pledged delegates by the time of the primary should draw the support of all (or most) super delegates, unless the party wants to further suppress turnout in November.

if the remaining states have a turnout larger than 85% of the 2012 general election, then Sanders should (according to the primary elections already held) win these states by large margins and take most of the super delegates as well as most of the pledged delegates.

Of course, as I stated, if Clinton and the DNC manage to be favored with the same low Democratic turnout they have had in the deep south and even many of the mid-west states, then she should be able to secure the Dem. nomination by April 20th, even if it costs the Dems the White House in November.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump vs Kasich, mostly. In Ohio (and a few other places) you can vote in either primary, regardless of which party you are registered for. Kasich is the Governor of Ohio. Also, the Republican primary is the one that is totally off track into the lands of complete insanity. All of the local press and the locals in general were fixated on the other contest.

A little history revision with your Wheaties this morning?

The reports were that the crossover vote would hurt Clinton, not Sanders.

And by your logic, what is to prevent more crossover 'defeat Trump' votes in other states as defeat-Trump campaigning gets heavier?