Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Trakar]

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.

If it changes the party's consideration that most closely aligns with your vote (IOW, if they lose or even come close to losing because they dismissed your concerns and interests as important and felt like you would have no choice but to vote for them even as they disregard your interests) then your vote is not wasted. Your vote does not elect the other candidate, the party who needed your vote but chose not to give your concerns the appropriate weight in their calculations wasted your potential support. The blame goes with the party, not the voter who chooses who to vote for based upon their interests and concerns.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

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.

Serious question: Do you actually believe the stuff you post?

 

[ddt]

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?

Yes, the fact that you understated the difference in delegates thus far, and overstated the number of delegates at play in various big states, substantively changes whether Bernie still has a chance to make up his losses thus far. I'm not even looking at the polls right now for upcoming states.

 

[Trakar]

When you say "more precise", does that mean "link that does not show a delegate count"?...

Funny, it pops right up for me?

(it is an interactive site, perhaps it is a cookie issue)

The only polls that matter are the ones which actually determine delegates or electors. Currently the polls RCP chooses to compare and average are no better than sampled snapshots, variously qualified, of transitory consideration.
They may reflective of the mood when the actual primary takes place or they may not, we will only know for sure in retrospect.

 

[ddt]

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.

That sounds like wishful thinking. Off the top of my head, some 450 out of the 712 super-delegates have already declared their support for Hillary. That high number necessarily includes many super-delegates from the states you mentioned. Surely, they can change their support right up to the moment of voting at the convention, but why would they if Hillary is the overall winner in pledged delegates, even if not exactly in their own state?

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.

That is a big if. I see only a handful of states were Bernie won with large margins (in delegates): NH 15-9, CO 38-28, MN 46-31, VT 16-0, KS 24-9, ME 16-9. That's not very encouraging.

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.

Of course, it's incumbent on Bernie to make his voters go to the polls to vote for him. OTOH, he's doing well enough that, on the current course, Hillary's lead on the eve of June 7 will be slightly less than the number of delegates at stake then, so she won't have "secured" anything (in a mathematical sense) after the NY primary

 

[wareyin]

Funny, it pops right up for me?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10633[/qimg]

(it is an interactive site, perhaps it is a cookie issue)

You linked to an FAQ page. I could not find a vote count anywhere on ap.org. Even if you could find one there, it is behind the one on fivethirtyeight, as most AP sources stop reporting the delegate count the day after the election, even though not all delegates have been apportioned.

eta: more digging found this site: https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/
perhaps that is what you meant? Still, looking at the individual states on that link shows that not all delegates were accounted for when they stopped reporting on each state: for instance Alabama has 60 pledged delegates, AP reports 47 for Clinton, 9 for Sanders ,for a total of 56 out of 60 before they lost interest.

The only polls that matter are the ones which actually determine delegates or electors. Currently the polls RCP chooses to compare and average are no better than sampled snapshots, variously qualified, of transitory consideration.
They may reflective of the mood when the actual primary takes place or they may not, we will only know for sure in retrospect.

And the Sanders supporter fallback to 'the polls aren't accurate' position, no matter how accurate they have been, nor usually are, remains as convincing as it always is: not at all.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, the fact that you understated the difference in delegates thus far, and overstated the number of delegates at play in various big states, substantively changes whether Bernie still has a chance to make up his losses thus far. I'm not even looking at the polls right now for upcoming states.

I was speaking of different issues in each case. The pledged delegates are all that is important for standing with regard to reaching nomination, as they are what will ultimately decide who has the voters' support. The Super delegates are potential votes which may change all they way up until they cast their votes in the convention. This is the basis of my comment that Hillary may reach the delegate count to technically win the nomination in late April, but if she falls behind in the pledged delegate count at any point from here on, or fails to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, her nomination will remain contentious and challenged until the convention decides who the nominee is.

 

[wareyin]

I was speaking of different issues in each case. The pledged delegates are all that is important for standing with regard to reaching nomination, as they are what will ultimately decide who has the voters' support. The Super delegates are potential votes which may change all they way up until they cast their votes in the convention. This is the basis of my comment that Hillary may reach the delegate count to technically win the nomination in late April, but if she falls behind in the pledged delegate count at any point from here on, or fails to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, her nomination will remain contentious and challenged until the convention decides who the nominee is.

Then why did you list delegate counts that included super delegates as well as pledged delegates?

 

[Trakar]

You linked to an FAQ page. I could not find a vote count anywhere on ap.org. Even if you could find one there, it is behind the one on fivethirtyeight, as most AP sources stop reporting the delegate count the day after the election, even though not all delegates have been apportioned
eta: more digging found this site: https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/...

If it matches the screen clipping I showed then it is the place where I got the information -- I believe the update date captured was 3-18-2016 which was Friday.

regardless, time will tell, and as I've repeatedly stated I'm perfectly happy in accepting the results regardless of how they resolve.

I would prefer to vote for Sanders for president, but if that choice is unavailable, I will vote for what I consider the second best choice who most closely resembles my concerns and public policy issue preferences, Dr. Stein.

 

[Trakar]

Then why did you list delegate counts that included super delegates as well as pledged delegates?

Because those are the total potential delegates available from those states, I don't expect Sanders or Clinton to clean the slate in any of those states.

 

[Trakar]

That sounds like wishful thinking. Off the top of my head, some 450 out of the 712 super-delegates have already declared their support for Hillary. That high number necessarily includes many super-delegates from the states you mentioned. Surely, they can change their support right up to the moment of voting at the convention, but why would they if Hillary is the overall winner in pledged delegates, even if not exactly in their own state?

To unify the party, to the super delegates, the benefits of the party are supposed to be greater than personal allegiances than to candidates.

That is a big if. I see only a handful of states were Bernie won with large margins (in delegates): NH 15-9, CO 38-28, MN 46-31, VT 16-0, KS 24-9, ME 16-9. That's not very encouraging.

Indeed, my understanding is that the majority of the remaining states more closely resemble the states where turnout has been better than 80% of the 2012 election, and large turnouts (with a single exception) so far, have definitely favored Sanders with respectable and sufficient margins.

Of course, it's incumbent on Bernie to make his voters go to the polls to vote for him. OTOH, he's doing well enough that, on the current course, Hillary's lead on the eve of June 7 will be slightly less than the number of delegates at stake then, so she won't have "secured" anything (in a mathematical sense) after the NY primary

That has always been the only real path to turnout and success for Sanders if he cant produce the turnout, he won't win and won't achieve anything if he did.

 

[ddt]

I was speaking of different issues in each case. The pledged delegates are all that is important for standing with regard to reaching nomination, as they are what will ultimately decide who has the voters' support. The Super delegates are potential votes which may change all they way up until they cast their votes in the convention. This is the basis of my comment that Hillary may reach the delegate count to technically win the nomination in late April, but if she falls behind in the pledged delegate count at any point from here on, or fails to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, her nomination will remain contentious and challenged until the convention decides who the nominee is.

I'm well aware of the status of super-delegates and that they can change their mind right up to the ballot at the convention. That's why I wholly disregarded them, even though a clear majority of them right now has declared support for Hillary (IIRC, some 450 for Hillary and only some 25 for Bernie, out of 712 total).

The 326 pledged delegate gap Bernie is facing right now cannot realistically be closed. OTOH, the gap is small enough that he can continue until June 7 in the hope that he'll magically get all delegates on that day. But that's not realistic. I predict now that Hillary will win by about 650 pledged delegates (+/- 10%), and there's no reason for the super-delegates who already declared their support for Hillary to change their mind. Why would they go against both their own preference and the popular vote?

Even if the polls about NY don't pan out and he pulls another Michigan, Bernie still has a slim victory there which he would need if he had not been trailing by the significant margin he now has.

 

[wareyin]

If it matches the screen clipping I showed then it is the place where I got the information -- I believe the update date captured was 3-18-2016 which was Friday.

regardless, time will tell, and as I've repeatedly stated I'm perfectly happy in accepting the results regardless of how they resolve.

I would prefer to vote for Sanders for president, but if that choice is unavailable, I will vote for what I consider the second best choice who most closely resembles my concerns and public policy issue preferences, Dr. Stein.

I can't see a screen clipping, either, and I checked with my phone and my PC.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nvm

 

[Garrison]

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.

And those who lose their Health Insurance when ACA is repealed will be martyrs to the cause, whether they like it or not.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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).

Good grief. Did a Democrat design this poll? Because it looks like the same type of convoluted nonsense they use to pick a nominee. What happened to "one person, one vote"?

 

[Trakar]

I can't see a screen clipping, either, and I checked with my phone and my PC.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10633

 

[Trakar]

Good grief. Did a Democrat design this poll? Because it looks like the same type of convoluted nonsense they use to pick a nominee. What happened to "one person, one vote"?

LOL, don't you know we can't trust the people to know how to vote properly, that's how the Republicans end up with Trump!

 

[wareyin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=839&pictureid=10633

I'll take your word that there is a pic there. Firefox and chrome give me a blank screen.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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.

Yeah, first-past-the-post voting sucks. I much prefer some kind of ranked choice voting, but the momentum on that movement has been vveeeeerrrrryyy ssslllllooooowwwww so far, because nobody's been able to make it sexy. It mainly appeals to political nerds, like me.

The same, to a lesser extent, goes for third parties. I have, of course, heard all of the "lesser evil" arguments before, and it seems to resonate with a lot of people. There are many rebuttals, such as:

1) Unless you live in a swing state, your vote for president doesn't really matter anyway. If you live in a red state, support will go to Republicans; if you live in a blue state, support will go to Democrats. It doesn't matter who you vote for. And if it doesn't matter who you vote for, why not vote your preference?

2) If Democrats think that they are guaranteed your vote, they have no reason to take your concerns seriously. As long as they can keep scaring you about the Republicans, you'll keep voting for them, even when they go into right-wing territory. However, if you can scare them with losing to a "spoiler" candidate, you might be able to pull their platform to the left. I don't have millions or billions of dollars to influence them with. My only bargaining chip is my vote.

3) Voting for the "lesser evil" is what got us into this situation in the third place. If you keep doing what you've always done, you're going to keep getting what you've always got. Jill Stein characterizes this as voting for the "greater good" instead of the "lesser evil".

4) It's undemocratic for me to be scared into voting against my best interests. I know that there's always going to be a two-party system as long as we have first-past-the-post voting (see Duverger's Law). I just want it to be a different two parties.

#4 is my primary reason, because I stand on principle, unlike the Democratic Party. I think that principles are important.