Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Tony Stark]

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.

So what if Trump/Cruz win and completely **** over millions of Americans as long as you stand by your principles!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

i get a 1x1 pixel

 

[Axiom_Blade]

So what if Trump/Cruz win and completely **** over millions of Americans as long as you stand by your principles!

Well, what if Clinton wins and completely **** over millions of Americans? I have a feeling I won't get an apology from you if that happens. If you're going to stand by your vote, I'm going to stand by mine.

Besides, did you even read my post? I'm not in a swing state. That argument doesn't work for me. If I can help the Green Party to get that 5% support, we'll qualify for a grant that is several million dollars. What if both the Democrats and Greens fracture and a newer, better party forms out of the ashes? Did you think about that?

If I were to accept your argument, I would simply not vote. What's the point? I don't think I could live with the guilt, frankly. I'd feel like I sold out. You can see this if you spend any time around older Democrats. The cognitive dissonance has made them bitter and jaded, and they just sit around and complain all the time. Yuck. I don't want to end up like that.

 

[Trakar]

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.

So you believe the Democratic primary vote will generally be lower than 82% of the 2012 turnout, in line with the southern state turnouts rather than like the turnout in Kansas (107.8% of 2012 turnout), Vermont (86.7%), Minnesota (100.4%), Colorado (102.9%), New Hampshire (88.3%)?

I do agree though, that even at this low of a turnout (say hovering right around 100% of the 2012 turnout), he probably wouldn't get much more than 60% of pledged delegates making it a close race but not one he'd be assured of winning. When I say he needs large turnouts to win convincingly, he probably needs to be over 110% 2012 to achieve a clear victory and make a compelling case for the super delegates to switch support at this point, that's a tough path, especially since his most favorable demographic won't be free to really step up to their role until after spring semester (May 12)/quarter (June 3) ends.

 

[Trakar]

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

Very Curious, I've never encountered problems with anyone having problems seeing images posted from my album before?!

Anyone more familiar with the system here understand why some may not be able to see a screen clipping image stored in my album and then posted?

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, what if Clinton wins and completely **** over millions of Americans? I have a feeling I won't get an apology from you if that happens. If you're going to stand by your vote, I'm going to stand by mine.

Besides, did you even read my post? I'm not in a swing state. That argument doesn't work for me. If I can help the Green Party to get that 5% support, we'll qualify for a grant that is several million dollars. What if both the Democrats and Greens fracture and a newer, better party forms out of the ashes? Did you think about that?

If I were to accept your argument, I would simply not vote. What's the point? I don't think I could live with the guilt, frankly. I'd feel like I sold out. You can see this if you spend any time around older Democrats. The cognitive dissonance has made them bitter and jaded, and they just sit around and complain all the time. Yuck. I don't want to end up like that.

You think that Hillary would sign a bill gutting the ACA, for example? Nonsense.

I'm sure the Republicans would absolutely love it the Greens become a third major party. It would make it much easier for them to win. You ever think about that?

The major problem with the US government is not with the Democrats. It is that the Republicans are a radical right wing party. And all not voting/voting third party does is help them. If more people thought like you, Mitt Romney would be President right now. He would have signed all kinds of right wing bills and would have nominated all kinds of right wing judges. But heh, that's cool, as long as people like you can live with yourselves!

That said, I am more sympathetic for your position since you don't live in a swing state.

 

[ddt]

So you believe the Democratic primary vote will generally be lower than 82% of the 2012 turnout, in line with the southern state turnouts rather than like the turnout in Kansas (107.8% of 2012 turnout), Vermont (86.7%), Minnesota (100.4%), Colorado (102.9%), New Hampshire (88.3%)?

I do agree though, that even at this low of a turnout (say hovering right around 100% of the 2012 turnout), he probably wouldn't get much more than 60% of pledged delegates making it a close race but not one he'd be assured of winning. When I say he needs large turnouts to win convincingly, he probably needs to be over 110% 2012 to achieve a clear victory and make a compelling case for the super delegates to switch support at this point, that's a tough path, especially since his most favorable demographic won't be free to really step up to their role until after spring semester (May 12)/quarter (June 3) ends.

I'm getting confused what you're comparing the turnout to.

To the 2012 presidential elections?
Or to the 2012 Democratic primaries? Really? Obama ran unopposed in most states.
Or to the 2008 Democratic primaries?

Could you please give me a link where I can get an overview of the turnout with historical comparisons?

BTW, I got nothing on your picture in post #3777 either.

 

[ddt]

(double post)

 

[Trakar]

I'm getting confused what you're comparing the turnout to.

To the 2012 presidential elections?
Or to the 2012 Democratic primaries? Really? Obama ran unopposed in most states.
Or to the 2008 Democratic primaries?

Could you please give me a link where I can get an overview of the turnout with historical comparisons?

BTW, I got nothing on your picture in post #3777 either.

My apologies to all, I am indeed talking about the 2008 Democratic Primaries, (not sure why I was getting that confused with the 2012 general).
I need to go update my table anyway, so I need to go pick up my wife from the hospital and I will retrieve the reference used and present it along with my updated table (earlier version in post 3331 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11173256&postcount=3331) after I return.

#3777 merely contains a link to the picture in my photo album, ISF photo album clicking on the link should open the image. The posted image actually appears in post 3764
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11187646&postcount=3764

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

My point is that your vote is extraordinarily unlikely to make a difference anyhow. Even in 2000, when the Presidential election was so ridiculously close that the result was in doubt for weeks, the margin of victory for Bush in Florida was over 500 votes. Florida has something like 14% of the population of the US. So if you chose a random voter in the country in that election, that random voter had a 14% chance of having his vote come within 500 votes of mattering, which means that even without that ridiculously close election, a random voter could have increased his preferred major party candidate's electoral prospects by roughly 14% * 1/500 = 0.0028%, if he were to refrain from "throwing away his vote."

In a normal election, the increase in electoral prospects you give to your preferred candidate is probably 1 in a few million. On the other hand, if a 3rd party candidate is expected to get within a few million votes of receiving federal matching funds in the next election (5% of popular vote threshold) and making a huge media splash, you have an opportunity to have a similar effect on the chance of that happening.

So in some situations (maybe most), you are "throwing away your vote" on the major party candidate if you really prefer a 3rd party candidate.

 

[Trakar]

A few initial comments there were several states where the data is missing from my reference - or where the Democratic vote has not occurred yet, or the parties have switched from primary to caucus or the other way around These are not included in this table (these states are: Alaska, Wyoming, Kentucky, Nebraska, Hawaii, and Idaho) in the interest of trying to keep the data consistent and comparing like to like situations.

2016 Presidential Nomination Contest Turnout Rates - http://www.electproject.org/2016P
http://www.electproject.org/2008p

As can be seen there are three instances where HRC has managed to win states where the Democratic vote of 2016 was greater than 90% of 2008's Democratic vote, and Sanders has won one states where the Democratic vote was less than 85% of the 2016 vote (there was only one exception for HRC in the earlier version of this analysis and no exceptions for Sanders). While this demonstrates that this is not a firm and inviolable precept, it is still a pretty consistent rule of thumb, at least so far.

An additionally interesting situation is that there appears to only be one Republican state that has registered below 2008 turnout and that is N. Carolina at around 85% of the 2008 turnout, and average Republican turnout is somewhere around 179.56% of 2008 Republican primary turnout, while the lowest turnout on the Democratic side is 49.74% (Texas - highest is 200.74%
in Michigan) and the average is 84.40%.

 

[Trakar]

duplicate deleted

 

[Axiom_Blade]

You think that Hillary would sign a bill gutting the ACA, for example? Nonsense.

Somebody needs to gut the ACA. Trump and I agree on that point; we just disagree on what the replacement should be.

I'm sure the Republicans would absolutely love it the Greens become a third major party. It would make it much easier for them to win. You ever think about that?

Yes. Are you actually reading my posts?

The major problem with the US government is not with the Democrats.

I disagree.

It is that the Republicans are a radical right wing party.

The problem is that both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

And all not voting/voting third party does is help them.

Again, I disagree, and I'm skeptical that you're reading my posts.

If more people thought like you, Mitt Romney would be President right now. He would have signed all kinds of right wing bills and would have nominated all kinds of right wing judges. But heh, that's cool, as long as people like you can live with yourselves!

Well, no. If more people thought like me, we'd have a president from the Green Party right now. Each person has a choice about how they use their vote. I can't tell them how to use it. If they choose to vote for a bad candidate and a bad candidate gets elected...how is that my fault?

Should I not do the right thing because others refuse to do the right thing? I don't know why you're lecturing me. I didn't set this system up. I'm just doing my part to make it better. If others refuse to help, that's on them. Personally, I think that your refusal to help us is making our country worse, but I recognize that as your right and your choice. I don't think that your choice is a good one, but I will not get up on a high horse and judge you for your decision.

Why would you do that to me?

 

[uke2se]

Delete

 

[jimbob]

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

This is the best example that I can think of as to why you should vote for the least worst option that has a chance of success.

In 2000, heard people say that the Republicans and Democrats were very similar so a protest vote would be fine.

the last sixteen years have shown that to be wrong. One presidency attacked civil liberties whilst the other got the ACA through against stiff opposition. It's not brilliant, but is a vast improvement and improvements are more likely when the benefits have had time to show.

 

[jimbob]

You think that Hillary would sign a bill gutting the ACA, for example? Nonsense.

I'm sure the Republicans would absolutely love it the Greens become a third major party. It would make it much easier for them to win. You ever think about that?

The major problem with the US government is not with the Democrats. It is that the Republicans are a radical right wing party. And all not voting/voting third party does is help them. If more people thought like you, Mitt Romney would be President right now. He would have signed all kinds of right wing bills and would have nominated all kinds of right wing judges. But heh, that's cool, as long as people like you can live with yourselves!

That said, I am more sympathetic for your position since you don't live in a swing state.

Especially since Hillary had tried to improve healthcare when Bill was President, but ran into Congress.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

It's hard to go against scripture.

 

[Tony Stark]

Somebody needs to gut the ACA. Trump and I agree on that point; we just disagree on what the replacement should be.



Yes. Are you actually reading my posts?



I disagree.



The problem is that both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street.



Again, I disagree, and I'm skeptical that you're reading my posts.



Well, no. If more people thought like me, we'd have a president from the Green Party right now. Each person has a choice about how they use their vote. I can't tell them how to use it. If they choose to vote for a bad candidate and a bad candidate gets elected...how is that my fault?

Should I not do the right thing because others refuse to do the right thing? I don't know why you're lecturing me. I didn't set this system up. I'm just doing my part to make it better. If others refuse to help, that's on them. Personally, I think that your refusal to help us is making our country worse, but I recognize that as your right and your choice. I don't think that your choice is a good one, but I will not get up on a high horse and judge you for your decision.

Why would you do that to me?

Why won't I do the same?

Because it is a clear, irrefutable fact that lefties voting third party/not voting helps radical right wing Republicans. Jill Stein has the same chance of being a elected President as I do. Though if enough people vote for her, it could swing the election to the GOP. Yeah, fantastic outcome.

Oh, and if the GOP succeeds in gutting the ACA, they are not going to replace it with anything. Because they simply do not care about millions of people losing health insurance. Neither, apparently, do many "progressives".

 

[Tony Stark]

Especially since Hillary had tried to improve healthcare when Bill was President, but ran into Congress.

But she is no different than Republicans who vow to take away healthcare from millions of Americans!

 

[Belz...]

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.

Why would it have this effect?

The blame goes with the party, not the voter who chooses who to vote for based upon their interests and concerns.

That sounds like the voter has no responsibility.