Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[The Big Dog]

Today is the first time I've ever heard the term.

But now I understand that racists associate the term with blacks, as we've seen in recent posts.

EXACTLY! Hillary the racist used those dog whistle phrases to refer to black kids.

Of course. Except when it shows Hillary winning. The Berners are entertainingly naive.

Oh right.... more dissembling from the Hillary Camp. Sad really

 

[Ammonitida]

Of course. Except when it shows Hillary winning. The Berners are entertainingly naive.

Bernie should win by 70% in any state that polls 50-50 according to BernieBros. Because that's what happened in Ohio....oh wait...that doesn't count, just the Utah and Idaho states do.

But Bernie will definitely win New York because he was born there, they say. Nevermind that New York is 25% black and 28% Latino.

 

[Manopolus]

Any evidence or is this more gut reaction/wishful thinking? The only polls are from May with Clinton ahead. No doubt Sanders has a following that doesn't show in those. He had a great turnout in Seattle.

But we have a large Black and Hispanic population. I wouldn't count on Utah/Idaho numbers.

Good grief, the only polls available still had Elizabeth Warren as a choice, and she did fairly decently in them, despite never suggesting that she would run. The last one done was in May of last year, as you mentioned. As a general rule though, I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders. Considering that the Clinton campaign runs its very message on polling and uses push polls (although that may be her super-pac), that's hardly surprising.

 

[The Big Dog]

But we have a large Black and Hispanic population. I wouldn't count on Utah/Idaho numbers.

You know who else has a large Hispanic population? Illinois, where Bernie TROUNCED Hillary among Hispanics in Cook County.

Feel The Bern en Espanol!

 

[wareyin]

Good grief, the only polls available still had Elizabeth Warren as a choice, and she did fairly decently in them. The last one done was in May of last year, as you mentioned. As a general rule though, I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders. Considering that the Clinton campaign runs its very message on polling, that's hardly surprising.

Another thing the States that go for Sanders have in common: not many delegates, hence not much polling. It's hardly surprising, but it's also not helping him win.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If by "predictive" you mean that when the polls say it's competitive, Bernie wins by up to 80%.

So ... you want to have your cake, and eat it, too.

Gotcha.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good grief, the only polls available still had Elizabeth Warren as a choice, and she did fairly decently in them, despite never suggesting that she would run. The last one done was in May of last year, as you mentioned. As a general rule though, I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders. Considering that the Clinton campaign runs its very message on polling and uses push polls (although that may be her super-pac), that's hardly surprising.

So you're basing your future vision of the WA caucus outcome on this superstitious tripe: "I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders."

It's like saying if there is no evidence the outcome must favor my candidate. Wishful thinking then.

 

[dudalb]

Denial is truly not just a river in Africa....

 

[The Big Dog]

So you're basing your future vision of the WA caucus outcome on this superstitious tripe: "I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders."

It's like saying if there is no evidence the outcome must favor my candidate. Wishful thinking then.

The claim is testable, and therefore not under any possible meaning of the phrase "superstitious tripe."

 

[Manopolus]

So you're basing your future vision of the WA caucus outcome on this superstitious tripe: "I've found that states that didn't show much polling tended to go to Sanders."

It's like saying if there is no evidence the outcome must favor my candidate. Wishful thinking then.

Well, how about examining one of the polls that had Warren and Sanders in the same poll. The two are ideologically and rhetorically similar, and the combined total between those two beat Hillary Clinton at a time when Bernie didn't even have much name recognition yet.

Yes, I know... Bernie didn't get as much as Hillary, and double teaming doesn't properly describe what's happening here. However, it also stands to reason that a whole lot of people had no clue who Bernie Sanders was at that point in time.

Is that good enough?

I'm still not keen on polls, but in this case they sort of support what I think is going to happen there, as long as you keep in mind when the poll was done. If the political leanings of Washington State are what I think they are, Bernie should win pretty solidly.


My data came from here -- just scroll down to Washington if you want a looksie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State...Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know what the polls show, Manopolus, and I said they were too old to be of much use. My point is you are taking no information and saying that supports your preferred outcome.

I'm saying demographics of WA State beg to differ. I expect Sanders to do well. He's doing well in Seattle. But I don't expect any 80:20 blowout.

 

[Manopolus]

I know what the polls show, Manopolus, and I said they were too old to be of much use. My point is you are taking no information and saying that supports your preferred outcome.

I'm saying demographics of WA State beg to differ. I expect Sanders to do well. He's doing well in Seattle. But I don't expect any 80:20 blowout.

Yeah, it probably won't be by quite that much. Where did I say so? I remember saying something like "up to 80%" relating to various polling phenomena, but it certainly was meant to include less than that, and was sort of a generalized rule-of-thumb made partially in jest. The main point was that the polls were WAY off (skewed towards Hillary) in Idaho and Utah, as they have been in a number of other places -- somewhat consistently, although there certainly have been exceptions.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm going to try to re-do my math on the 58% number that I tried to do in an earlier post. Bear with me, this post may very well change:

Tuesday delegates: 73-55, R3 / 131
Democrats abroad: 9-4 / 13
Totals : 82-59, R3 / 144

Minimum (current/total): 82/144 = 56.94%

Maximum (+3 currently unassigned): 85/144 = 59.03%

Ignore unassigned (total delegates -3): 82/141 = 58.16%

That'll do, I think. Feel free to offer any corrections.

 

[luchog]

Should Sanders have similarly owned up to his similar gaffe? Or is this another case of standards only Clinton should follow?

Erm, what? That's a ridiculous stretch to try and link his comments to the superpredator myth. In fact, his statement was effectively a truism that shouldn't need to be associated with any myth. There are people who are extremely violent and need to be incarcerated, we often refer to them as "sociopaths" or "psychopaths". At no point did he refer to superpredators or any of the other racist dogwhistles, and HuffPo's attempt to create that association was clearly specious, and unfortunately expected from a rag that has been fairly blatantly anti-Sanders this entire campaign.

 

[luchog]

You're bringing up old news, why?

Wow, you're really not paying attention are you? Go back and read the thread. I was addressing the assertions that the "superpredator" issue was not a racist one. It is, and always has been, and I provided direct evidence of that fact.

The rest of your post was a complete non-sequitor in that context. But anything to avoid the real issues, right?

 

[luchog]

Today is the first time I've ever heard the term.

You really need to get out more. It's been around for just over 20 years now.

But now I understand that racists associate the term with blacks, as we've seen in recent posts.

It was created by racists. I'd ask if you've read the article, but the answer to that is really obviously no, which is exactly what I expected. Trolls gotta troll.

 

[wareyin]

Did you even watch that speech? There was no gaffe there. It was just a hit piece with no substance brought to us by the very obviously Clinton-supporting Huffington Post. It was actually quite bizarre what they chose to criticize... because there was nothing there.

Huffington Post is actually the WORST of the offenders when it comes to the press biasing towards Clinton, BTW. I used to have them in my FB feed, but had to reluctantly yank them out when the BS got a little too obvious. What I was seeing there kind of pissed me off.

Erm, what? That's a ridiculous stretch to try and link his comments to the superpredator myth. In fact, his statement was effectively a truism that shouldn't need to be associated with any myth. There are people who are extremely violent and need to be incarcerated, we often refer to them as "sociopaths" or "psychopaths". At no point did he refer to superpredators or any of the other racist dogwhistles, and HuffPo's attempt to create that association was clearly specious, and unfortunately expected from a rag that has been fairly blatantly anti-Sanders this entire campaign.

Well, that's 2 votes for 'Clinton is the only racist one when she and Sanders say the same type of thing in the same timeframe'. Regarding the highlighted, you'll have to forgive me if I don't put too much stock in the astute political opinions of those who are so far in the tank for Sanders that they still think he has a chance.

 

[luchog]

Well, that's 2 votes for 'Clinton is the only racist one when she and Sanders say the same type of thing in the same timeframe'. Regarding the highlighted, you'll have to forgive me if I don't put too much stock in the astute political opinions of those who are so far in the tank for Sanders that they still think he has a chance.

Do get dizzy from all that spinning? I know I would.

I'd say "context is your friend", but as you've blatantly ignored context so far, I'd guess it's no more than a distant acquaintance.

 

[wareyin]

Do get dizzy from all that spinning? I know I would.

I'd say "context is your friend", but as you've blatantly ignored context so far, I'd guess it's no more than a distant acquaintance.

Context is key, not just my friend. It's too bad that you and others have to ignore the context so obviously in your attempt to claim that Clinton talking about gang members is racist, while Sanders talking about criminals is not racist.

 

[Manopolus]

Context is key, not just my friend. It's too bad that you and others have to ignore the context so obviously in your attempt to claim that Clinton talking about gang members is racist, while Sanders talking about criminals is not racist.

Watch the damn video. The whole thing is a clip of Sanders making the connection between impoverished areas and criminal behavior, and basically saying that we should be tackling the poverty angle rather than putting more people in jail for longer sentences. It's exactly the same sort of thing he's been saying in his present campaign. There's no scandal here. He hasn't even changed his message since. It's the same thing he's saying now.