Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Manopolus]

Because the day will come when the best strategy for fulfilling the maximum number of his stated goals is to line up behind his opponent.

For an example of what that looks like in practice: https://youtu.be/MeFMZ7fpGHY

You did notice that this happened at the convention though, didn't you? That wasn't quitting. That was game over.

 

[Manopolus]

You don't need supernatural powers to understand the fact that Bernie is so behind that he stands almost zero shot of winning. You just need to not be deluded.

It is over.

Read my edited in part of that post. He has a 42% chance of winning, by the numbers and ignoring irrelevant forecasting balderdash like polling. Hillary currently has 58% of the vote to Bernie's 42%. That's the only numbers that matter. Add in that we're less than halfway through the contest (by population and number of delegates) and you've probably got something better than that. I'll admit I'm not a statistician, but it ain't far off at a guesstimate.

 

[d4m10n]

You did notice that this happened at the convention though, didn't you? That wasn't quitting. That was game over.

I couldn't find the video from June 7th, alas.

 

[Tony Stark]

Read my edited in part of that post. He has a 42% chance of winning, by the numbers.

LOL. Having 42% of the votes/delegates absolutely does not mean those are his chances. You saying so just proves you have no idea what you are taking about.

 

[Manopolus]

LOL. Having 42% of the votes/delegates absolutely does not mean those are his chances. You saying so just proves you have no idea what you are taking about.

What I mean is that he has to take 58% of the vote from here forward. There are no forecasting mechanisms that can accurately predict whether he will do this or not. It is just as likely that he will get 98% of the vote as it is that he will get 2% of the vote. Polling by traditional methods is completely useless when most of his voters are first-time voters. I don't mean that the polls will necessarily always be wrong in numerical results -- they might not be by some miracle of luck. I just mean they're useless. They predict nothing, because they make unwarranted assumptions by necessity. We're not even seeing the raw data of who supports whom. I'm pretty sure that'd skew in Bernie's favor if we were allowed to see it, but the only data I have to base that on is favorability ratings.

As far as the actual probability, I honestly don't think there is a mathematical tool to measure it properly. The only thing we have is the current score, and we're halfway through. I think it's equally likely that he will win by a certain amount as it was that Hillary would win by the same amount in the first half of the contest. That is, there isn't any probability to calculate.

 

[wareyin]

It would never be appropriate, considering that he has already stated that he has no intention of stopping prior to the convention. There are reasons to do so even if he does lose. Why is that so hard to accept? He is quite simply not a quitter, and the campaign still has meaning even after it's impossible to win (which it isn't yet anyway).

On the contrary, it is quite appropriate now, and will continue to be appropriate to talk about Sanders dropping out. Why on Earth would it not be?

Why would there ever be a time when it is appropriate to tell someone to give up that has no intention of ever doing so? He's made it quite clear that it's not going to happen, and his supporters seem to agree (I know I do).

Again, it is already appropriate to tell someone to "give up" even if they have no intention of doing so.

There's not even any advantage Hillary could gain in the general if he did quit. It's just a demoralization strategy brought to you by Hillary supporters. Those statements are not targeted at anything to do with winning the general election. They're targeted at winning the nomination. Hillary doesn't actually benefit from Bernie dropping out if we assume that she wins in both cases. It's just a campaign tactic.

Do you not realize that allowing Clinton to focus on the general now would give her an advantage in the general? I realize that waiting a few weeks until it is mathematically impossible won't be much more difficult than if Sanders just quit while he could still win by a miracle.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty reasonable to suggest that Obama's landslide in his first election was partially due to the nomination campaign going all the way to the convention, exciting turnout in the general. We don't have that kind of turnout this year (well, actually we do in the states that Bernie has won), but it can still build on what there is from here. As long as the result is in question, we've got new people registering to vote along the way that might have waited too long otherwise.

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election
.

 

[Tony Stark]

What I mean is that he has to take 58% of the vote from here forward. There are no forecasting mechanisms that can accurately predict whether he will do this or not.

We can most definitely conclude that it is VERY improbable that he will do it. It is fact the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Manopolus]

On the contrary, it is quite appropriate now, and will continue to be appropriate to talk about Sanders dropping out. Why on Earth would it not be?

No. It isn't. It's nothing but a dirty campaign tactic, and always has been.

Again, it is already appropriate to tell someone to "give up" even if they have no intention of doing so.

No. It isn't. It's nothing but a dirty campaign tactic, and always has been.

Do you not realize that allowing Clinton to focus on the general now would give her an advantage in the general? I realize that waiting a few weeks until it is mathematically impossible won't be much more difficult than if Sanders just quit while he could still win by a miracle.

Both candidates are already largely focusing on the general election already. Their comments about each other are the exception, not the rule. Mostly they're talking about their platforms in general and attacking Republicans. There's no rule that you can't "focus on the general" while still in a primary fight. As a matter of fact, the way you do that can be enlightening with regard to the primary.

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election
.

Who said anything about primary turnout? I'm talking about getting more people in the states that vote in the primaries last registered earlier than we might have otherwise. Also, "length of campaign" and "turnout" are two different factors. I'm talking about the possibility of turning Utah and Arizona blue, and perhaps having a better result in others -- not just for the presidential election, either.

 

[wareyin]

No. It isn't. It's nothing but a dirty campaign tactic, and always has been.





No. It isn't. It's nothing but a dirty campaign tactic, and always has been.

Why would it be dirty? How is it a campaign tactic when the people doing it are not involved in the campaign? You dismissed Trump's calls for Cruz to drop out earlier, but that is a campaign tactic. Everyone from Senators to forum posters doing so but not the Clinton campaign is patently not a dirty campaign tactic.

Both candidates are already largely focusing on the general election. Their comments about each other are the exception, not the rule. Mostly they're talking about their platforms in general and attacking Republicans.





Who said anything about turnout? I'm talking about getting more people in the states that vote in the primaries last registered earlier than we might have otherwise. Also, "length of campaign" and "turnout" are two different factors. I'm talking about the possibility of turning Utah and Arizona blue, and perhaps having a better result in others -- not just the presidential election, either.

Are you under the impression that Sanders is looking good in Arizona? Clinton is up by 30%, that is, if you believe the polls (which have been a far more reliable indicator of elections than Sanders supporters' predictions).

 

[Manopolus]

Why would it be dirty? How is it a campaign tactic when the people doing it are not involved in the campaign? You dismissed Trump's calls for Cruz to drop out earlier, but that is a campaign tactic. Everyone from Senators to forum posters doing so but not the Clinton campaign is patently not a dirty campaign tactic.

Oh, I get it. So when Trump and Clinton supporters do the same damn thing, only one of them is dirty. That sort of statement makes me less interested in the "Clinton is inevitable" camp than I am in Trump (well, not quite possible, but still).

Are you under the impression that Sanders is looking good in Arizona? Clinton is up by 30%, that is, if you believe the polls (which have been a far more reliable indicator of elections than Sanders supporters' predictions).

As I've stated many times, I don't "believe in" polls any more than I have faith in astrologers. I'm an atheist when it comes to polling. I don't believe that an accurate political poll exists. It's pure woo with a bunch of fuzzy math thrown in to make it look like it means something. The only polls that matter are the ones where people actually cast their votes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just as an aside, apparently it's not just black voters who are being disenfranchised.

Illinois College Students Say They Were Threatened With Arrest And Turned Away From The Polls.

From your link:

judge David Liddy wouldn’t allow them to register. Some were denied because Illinois law requires voters to provide proof of their physical address, but they only had documents with their P.O boxes, where they receive mail on campus. Though Liddy had the right to deny these students until they provided proof of their physical address, Gonzalez said she saw 35 to 40 students turned away for this reason without a full explanation of the documentation they would need in order to register.

I'm all for addressing this issue of resolving where college students can vote and making it easy for them to register. But last minute registration then whining they didn't get an explanation for what would be adequate ID, it's hard to empathize with that.

Why did they wait until the last minute?

The video shows the man was polite, patient, explained what they needed, told them how to take care of it before election day, said if they could print up their dorm room assignment/agreement he could register them today.

If this is supposed to be some shenanigans, that's just crap. The man had a rule to follow. You can see from the video he was merely sticking to the rule.

The caption said he laughed at them. Oh for pity's sake he was commenting on their waiting to the last minute, something I'm sure lots of parent have said to their kids more than once. It's not a mean laugh at all.



People need to see the video for themselves. There was nothing there justifying the lie that these students were being cheated out of a vote.

 

[Tony Stark]

Oh, I get it. So when Trump and Clinton supporters do the same damn thing, only one of them is dirty. That sort of statement makes me less interested in the "Clinton is inevitable" camp than I am in Trump (well, not quite possible, but still).





As I've stated many times, I don't "believe in" polls any more than I have faith in astrologers. I'm an atheist when it comes to polling. I don't believe that an accurate political poll exists. It's pure woo with a bunch of math thrown in to make it look like it means something.

So it is by sheer coincidence that Nate Silver picked 50/50 states last election?

 

[Manopolus]

So it is by sheer coincidence that Nate Silver picked 50/50 states last election?

Yep.

...but let's also keep in mind that you're talking about the general election, where we have some very notable differences. It's a hell of a lot easier to guess right in that situation. Among other things, you had to be registered in advance -- not true of the primaries. That gives a different selection criteria to the pollsters. I don't think he was particularly accurate on margins of victory in the popular vote either (if he even predicted it -- not certain because I go out of my way to ignore psuedopsychic predictions).

Or were you talking about the Republican primaries?

 

[Tony Stark]

Yep.

LOL

 

[wareyin]

Oh, I get it. So when Trump and Clinton supporters do the same damn thing, only one of them is dirty. That sort of statement makes me less interested in the "Clinton is inevitable" camp than I am in Trump (well, not quite possible, but still).

Slow the Gish Gallop, please. Trump himself calls for Cruz to drop out, that's a campaign tactic. Pundit on TV, or sitting Senator not affiliated with the Clinton campaign calls for Sanders to drop out do, that's not a campaign tactic. Can you see the difference? Right now, you're calling the Clinton campaign dirty because cookpolitical.com says a Sanders nomination is a virtual impossibility.

Further, I asked you to explain how it is a dirty tactic, I didn't say it only makes one party dirty.

As I've stated many times, I don't "believe in" polls any more than I have faith in astrologers. I'm an atheist when it comes to polling. I don't believe that a useful political poll exists.

I know you don't believe that polls can be accurate. That makes their accuracy combined with your inaccuracy hard to ignore.

 

[Manopolus]

Slow the Gish Gallop, please. Trump himself calls for Cruz to drop out, that's a campaign tactic. Pundit on TV, or sitting Senator not affiliated with the Clinton campaign calls for Sanders to drop out do, that's not a campaign tactic. Can you see the difference? Right now, you're calling the Clinton campaign dirty because cookpolitical.com says a Sanders nomination is a virtual impossibility.

"Pundits on TV" have very obviously been for Clinton's campaign from the beginning. Sorry, but it's the plain truth. No, it's not a conspiracy. Sanders' campaign has been antagonistic towards the press throughout the election, and the press tends to reciprocate. Furthermore, they've been calling Hillary inevitable since the campaign began. It has been so freaking obvious all along that it's almost hilarious to hear from someone that hasn't noticed.

Seriously, the main press outlets have been "for" Clinton in as obvious of a manner as they've been "against" Trump. Those are the two who get the most exposure of any of the candidates in the press, period. No, it probably isn't a conspiracy. They probably figured that those were their most profitable candidates to cover individually, without collusion, well before the campaigns really started.

Furthermore, they're really just parroting Washington political noise at this point -- from people that have supported Clinton all along. Even Obama has subtly made comments in that direction.

Further, I asked you to explain how it is a dirty tactic, I didn't say it only makes one party dirty.

An attempt to demoralize the other side doesn't strike you as a little underhanded?

I know you don't believe that polls can be accurate. That makes their accuracy combined with your inaccuracy hard to ignore.

I'm not the one that is claiming to know the future. I'm playing the part of the militant agnostic screaming that I don't know, but neither do you. Sorry if that insults your pop-culture/press-inspired religion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"Pundits on TV" have very obviously been for Clinton's campaign from the beginning. Sorry, but it's the plain truth. No, it's not a conspiracy. Sanders' campaign has been antagonistic towards the press throughout the election, and the press tends to reciprocate. Furthermore, they've been calling Hillary inevitable since the campaign began. It has been so freaking obvious all along that it's almost hilarious to hear from someone that hasn't noticed.

CT forum is thataway ============>

 

[Manopolus]

CT forum is thataway ============>

Do you really want me to count the mentions of Clinton vs Sanders in mainstream press outlets? I could probably just do a damn word count of how many times their name is mentioned and prove what I said there. It's completely obvious to anyone that has been actually paying attention.

...and I clearly said that it wasn't a conspiracy. It's mechanics. Sometimes the results of how the press operates (independently!) has the same effect as a conspiracy would, but that's not the same thing as there actually being a conspiracy. I thought I made that clear, and it has been one of my mantras on this forum for a long damn time.

Quit using the implied "conspiracy theory" nonsense as an ad hominem, please. It's getting old. If I thought there was a conspiracy, I'd say so. There have been conspiracies that have actually happened, after all. I don't claim to be able to detect them though. The world is connected in ways that don't involve a hidden cabal. The lack of nefarious plotters doesn't mean that connections that influence each other (sometimes quite subtly) don't exist, particularly when you're talking about an industry that relies heavily on the AP.

Anyway, it's too damn much work to do for someone that would just find some other excuse as to why you think I am wrong. It's obvious enough to me without doing the work.

 

[Joey McGee]

You've not made a case, here. Just stated that your point is made. That's not very convincing.

I can't spoonfeed you context of witty points!

Do you agree that not going through the voting process and instead lobbying the government with money and influence is inherently anti-democratic?

What the hell? So if a person votes AND writes letters to their government threatening a lack of support if they their objective is not reached they are contradicting themselves?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Pundits on TV" have very obviously been for Clinton's campaign from the beginning. Sorry, but it's the plain truth. No, it's not a conspiracy. Sanders' campaign has been antagonistic towards the press throughout the election, and the press tends to reciprocate. Furthermore, they've been calling Hillary inevitable since the campaign began. It has been so freaking obvious all along that it's almost hilarious to hear from someone that hasn't noticed.

Seriously, the main press outlets have been "for" Clinton in as obvious of a manner as they've been "against" Trump. Those are the two who get the most exposure of any of the candidates in the press, period. No, it probably isn't a conspiracy. They probably figured that those were their most profitable candidates to cover individually, without collusion, well before the campaigns really started.....

You cannot support this with facts.

MSNBC has been more on the side of Sanders than not. Hillary's more coverage is mostly negative coverage about emails and Benghazi. There is nothing comparable to that negative coverage for Sanders.

This narrative for why Sanders is losing is bunk. He looks better than he is because he gets big crowds in specific areas, like college towns. He had a big turnout in Seattle but I've only been contacted by Clinton supporters, so which shows greater support?