Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[d4m10n]

Pledged delegates update

Clinton - 1,223
Sanders - 920
Available - 2,129

Bernie needs to win 57.1% of the remaining delegates to break even. By a happy coincidence, this is roughly the same margin Hillary has been winning by to date.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, but that's the nature of dog whistling. Characterize, and even politicize through exaggeration, while maintaining deniability through the vagaries of who it applies to. The main issue here is that she was name calling, you know? "Criminal" is a generally accepted term for someone that broke the law. "Super predator" is a whole new characterization/description that goes a bit beyond that.

Add me to the list of people who never heard of this supposed dog whistle.

Kudos to wareyin for succinctly and effectively painting you into a corner with your dual standard. A standard where Clinton's words are cast in the worst possible light, whereas Saint Bernie can say no wrong.

 

[wareyin]

Pledged delegates update

Clinton - 1,223
Sanders - 920
Available - 2,129

Bernie needs to win 57.1% of the remaining delegates to break even. By a happy coincidence, this is roughly the same margin Hillary has been winning by to date.

[qimg]http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160324/858aabe065d9ac28d267371f6082f295.jpg[/qimg]

Well, Alaska and their whopping 16 pledged delegates will probably go big for Sanders, so there's that.

 

[luchog]

For those who are still whining about "OMGConspiracyTheory!"

Even the Arizona state government recognizes that there was something very wrong here: http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-primary-voter-suppression/.

 

[luchog]

I guess I don't obsess over race like others.

Easy not to care when you're not the one being discriminated against. In fact, there's an entire major political party that doesn't care about racism, you'd fit right in.

So we have another racist who assumes that "super predator" automatically refers to blacks? Sick. But, at least you own it!

You honestly expect me to be upset by this? LOL, the quality of your trolls are really really dropping lately. You can do better than this, put some effort into it, you're just getting boring now.

(I know, I know, stop feeding the trolls.)

 

[Tony Stark]

For those who are still whining about "OMGConspiracyTheory!"

Even the Arizona state government recognizes that there was something very wrong here: http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-primary-voter-suppression/.

Yeah, except for the fact that the Arizona government is run by Republicans.

Also, I had zero problem voting in the election. They mailed me ballot. I marked my vote (Bernie Sanders), and put it back in the mailbox. Didn't even have to pay for postage.

Not that the primary wasn't a **** show, especially in Maricopa County. But it was Republicans that were responsible. The notion that Democrats conspired against Bernie in Arizona is flat out ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[luchog]

Considering that this was from, I believe, 1996... Had the paper been shown to be junk science at that point? And if not, then why blame those that used it any more than anyone that used the paper that declared that there was a link between Vaccinations and Autism shortly after it was published?

The paper was clearly junk science from the time it was published, just like Wakefield's paper had anyone bothered to look at it closely enough. But few people looked at it that closely, because it fed into popular prejudice and beliefs, and gave people a clear boogeyman and scapegoat. People are far less likely to be skeptical about something that agrees with and reinforces their own beliefs or fears, than they are about something that contradicts them. Easier to blame "superpredators" and "gangs" for inner-city problems and "white flight", than address the issues of poverty, institutionalized racism, systematic oppression, destruction of communities, and endemic lack of educational and employment opportunities that create the environment where gangs and violence thrive.

Politicians, especially conservative politicians, love this sort of junk science fearmongering, because it is a very useful tool to influence people and garner votes, and they can insulate themselves from accusations of racism and classism because "Look, it's Science!" Junk science and pseudoscience in general is very popular for grabbing attention and votes. That's why so many states, my own included, pander so heavily to the naturopathic medicine and "dietary supplement" industries. They're popular, and can pretend to be scientific, so it's a great image to be seen on the side of the little guy against the Big Pharma corporations (despite the reality that they're both the same people for the most part).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those who are still whining about "OMGConspiracyTheory!"

Even the Arizona state government recognizes that there was something very wrong here: http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-primary-voter-suppression/.

Yes but that's the wrong CT for Sanders, that's a GOP CT against Latinos. If anything that would have favored Sanders given he didn't do well with Hispanics in Utah. Not sure I've seen any evidence Latinos are going for Sanders in a big way.

And so far all the cries of, "I was a Democrat and they said I was registered Independent", according to Pullen, those were people who had been voting Democratic for so long, and hadn't voted in the primaries and had forgotten their original registration was indeed, "no party preference".

Now Pullen is the person responsible for cutting all the polling places in Maricopa County so I take that with a grain of salt. But, one) it makes sense and two) it's Trump territory (Joe Arpaio country) so they'd have no reason to turn independents away and no reason to see Clinton do better than Sanders.

 

[luchog]

Yes but that's the wrong CT for Sanders, that's a GOP CT against Latinos. If anything that would have favored Sanders given he didn't do well with Hispanics in Utah. Not sure I've seen any evidence Latinos are going for Sanders in a big way.

Really?

Not paying much attention I guess: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11193199#post11193199

Now Pullen is the person responsible for cutting all the polling places in Maricopa County so I take that with a grain of salt.

Ya think?

But, one) it makes sense and two) it's Trump territory (Joe Arpaio country) so they'd have no reason to turn independents away and no reason to see Clinton do better than Sanders.

Wait what? Clinton won't do better than Sanders among low-income Hispanics (who have voted for Sanders in other states), and it won't matter in the general election anyway; but big Clinton wins in highly conservative GOP-dominated Southern states that have very consistently voted Republican in all but one election of the last 40 years means that she's the right choice in the general election and more electable than Sanders?

You're making me dizzy here with all that spinning.

The fact is, Hispanics have been fairly evenly split depending on region and income level, with lower income Hispanics going more toward Sanders (see Illinois) and middle-class (predominantly Cuban) Hispanics going to Clinton. Which were the ones disenfranchised here in Arizona.

Regardless of whether you think those neighborhoods would have gone to Sanders or Clinton isn't the issue here, which I said at the outset I wasn't going to call either way, as that isn't the real issue. This election so far has been heavily tainted by irregularities and outright fraud on both the GOP and Democrat side, more blatantly so with the Democratic primaries. This is not the first time in this primary election that voters have been turned away from the polls or not allowed to vote for highly suspect and outright specious reasons. Worse than gerrymandering going on here.

 

[luchog]

Not that the primary wasn't a **** show, especially in Maricopa County. But it was Republicans that were responsible. The notion that Democrats conspired against Bernie in Arizona is flat out ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.

I must be going senile, because I don't remember claiming that to be the case. Could you do me a favour and point me to where I said that this is a conspiracy against Sanders?

You know, or apologize for grossly misrepresenting my comments, which I don't expect to happen either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but that's the wrong CT for Sanders, that's a GOP CT against Latinos. If anything that would have favored Sanders given he didn't do well with Hispanics in Utah. Not sure I've seen any evidence Latinos are going for Sanders in a big way.

Really?

Not paying much attention I guess: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11193199#post11193199

Ya think?

Wait what? Clinton won't do better than Sanders among low-income Hispanics (who have voted for Sanders in other states), and it won't matter in the general election anyway; but big Clinton wins in highly conservative GOP-dominated Southern states that have very consistently voted Republican in all but one election of the last 40 years means that she's the right choice in the general election and more electable than Sanders?

You're making me dizzy here with all that spinning.

The fact is, Hispanics have been fairly evenly split depending on region and income level, with lower income Hispanics going more toward Sanders (see Illinois) and middle-class (predominantly Cuban) Hispanics going to Clinton. Which were the ones disenfranchised here in Arizona.

Regardless of whether you think those neighborhoods would have gone to Sanders or Clinton isn't the issue here, which I said at the outset I wasn't going to call either way, as that isn't the real issue. This election so far has been heavily tainted by irregularities and outright fraud on both the GOP and Democrat side, more blatantly so with the Democratic primaries. This is not the first time in this primary election that voters have been turned away from the polls or not allowed to vote for highly suspect and outright specious reasons. Worse than gerrymandering going on here.

You missed the main point, why would Pullen want to help Clinton? Yes yes I know, you all have a fantasy that Sanders is harder to beat while we keep reminding you the 'raising everyone's taxes to give everyone a free pony' ad barrage has not begun. You are in denial.

Sanders can't even win among Democrats. Yet you insist the right wing thinks Clinton is easier to win.

That's quite the convoluted CT. Pullen being a right winger conspired to suppress Sanders votes.

Here's your first problem: Clinton is beating Sanders among Latinos 57:28 in this poll. And while it might have narrowed in NV that trend is not a given, nor is it holding elsewhere.

The Vermont senator is connecting his economic policies to the concerns of the Hispanic community. The former secretary of state is just plain connecting. Whose message will work?

So why would Pullen plot to decrease Latino voters to influence the Democratic Primary?

OTOH, decreasing Latino polling places would discourage Latino voters in the general. We don't disagree reducing the polling places was purposeful voter disenfranchisement.

And, it makes sense people who registered 'no party affiliate' a decade earlier and had voted a Democratic slate since would have forgotten what they put on their initial voter registration. These are going to be people who don't vote in primaries.

I'll wait and see if some evidence comes up that registered Democrats were turned away in any significant number (and their provisional ballots not counted). In the meantime, a flood of complaints on Reddit is the only evidence I've seen and Bernie supporters seem to be the bulk of those anecdotes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I must be going senile, because I don't remember claiming that to be the case. Could you do me a favour and point me to where I said that this is a conspiracy against Sanders?....

No you just said Latinos were disproportionately voting for Sanders suggesting Sanders was hurt by the Latino vote suppression and there's no evidence of that. If anything Clinton's numbers suffered.

 

[Manopolus]

Back on the Washington State question, I might add that Washington State was one of the states that legalized marijuana. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that has proposed making that legal at the federal level. That issue alone suggests to me that not only is WA going to be a win, it's going to be a big one. Colorado was approximately 60%-40% in Bernie's favor. I'm suspecting that Washington will probably be at least that, if not more.

Washington Initiative 502^WP passed 55.7%-44.3%. Colorado also had similar numbers for Colorado_Amendment_64^WP at 55.32%-44.68%. Of course, that's not the only reason to vote for Bernie, and we're talking about standing state law that conflicts with federal law now rather than the question of whether to change state law, so I suspect the margins will be larger than the legalizing vote.

And yes, I think its very important for federal law to be consistent with state law, particularly considering that a certain political party has threatened to start enforcing federal law again if they gain the presidency. I'd suspect that quite a few others in these states agree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Clinton isn't exactly right wing on pot. Does anyone believe Bill never inhaled?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-easing-restrictions-marijuana

 

[Maya22]

I have five relatives caucusing in Washington State this Saturday. Three are D"s and one is an R. I'm not sure about the fifth one. I know that one of them is choosing Sanders. I'm not sure whom the others are choosing.

 

[Manopolus]

Clinton isn't exactly right wing on pot. Does anyone believe Bill never inhaled?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-easing-restrictions-marijuana

Yeah, but moving it to Schedule 2 would only help the medical marijuana situation. Washington, Oregon and Colorado have legalized recreational marijuana. Recreational use would still be problematic under Schedule 2, unless I'm mistaken (I could be, but I don't think so).

Yeah, here's the criteria for Schedule 2 -- it's virtually identical to Schedule 1, except that it has an acceptable medical use:

The drug has a high potential for abuse. The drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

source (it was just the first google result).

According to your source, she's proposing moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. Bernie wants to deregulate it entirely -- except with regard to age restrictions, I assume (although he hasn't even really given that exception explicitly).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh for pity's sake: the web is alive with claims that Sanders really won AZ.

Yes yes, the voter suppression was clear and needs to be addressed before the general. That is important. No, there is no evidence it affected Sanders' voters in any greater proportion than Clinton voters.

Wait for the evidence. It's just like those students in Illinois claiming they were mistreated when the video shows clearly they were not. A bunch of babies whining because they didn't take care of business and they want to be accommodated.

Let's see how many of these people who claimed they were registered Democrats actually were before assuming they are correct and not similarly mistaken like the Illinois students.

If they were, fine, but believing all the claims before there is evidence, not so much. In some cases no doubt people are outright lying, like happens online all the time.

It's as bad a Trumpers believing the 'establishment' is afraid of him and trying to derail his nomination. Yes they are afraid of Trump, but not because he's going to deport people and cause wages to rise. It's because he's unpredictable and could ruin the world's economy or drop a nuke on ISIS.

The DNC is against Sanders. As they have a right to be. They don't support socialism, don't want to see a massive change in the economic basis of the US government. Is it because they are all in the pockets of the rich? That's just crap.

Do the lobbyists and campaign financiers have too much influence in government? Absolutely. But it hasn't resulted in some massive 'establishment' conspiracy against Sanders. The main thing the DNC is afraid of with a Sanders nomination is losing the general and the second thing is he won't be effective.

Be those things true or false, they are what the DNC believes. No Democrat I know who supports Clinton is against Sanders' message.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, but moving it to Schedule 2 would only help the medical marijuana situation. Washington, Oregon and Colorado have legalized recreational marijuana. Recreational use would still be problematic under Schedule 2, unless I'm mistaken (I could be, but I don't think so).

Yeah, here's the criteria for Schedule 2 -- it's virtually identical to Schedule 1, except that it has an acceptable medical use:


source (it was just the first google result).

According to your source, she's proposing moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. Bernie wants to deregulate it entirely -- except with regard to age restrictions, I assume (although he hasn't even really given that exception explicitly).

The point is, it's not a huge campaign issue in this state. People who would care are likely Sanders voters anyway.


What is with you guys wishfully dreaming that Sanders is going to win, claiming he really won AZ but was cheated at the polls, are you all not capable of saying, there's still a chance but it's slim? He is losing among minorities and older people and young white people will just not carry the day.

 

[Manopolus]

New York's deadline for registering is tomorrow, if anyone was wondering. I got that from one of Bernie's emails calling for volunteers to man the phones. He says he needs 13,000 more of his people to get registered in order to win, according to some statistical adviser or other. Wishful thinking? Probably, but who knows? The poll that said Hillary was ahead by a margin of 48 was so obviously flawed it was ridiculous. They summarily threw out everybody that hadn't voted in 2012, as well as anybody that didn't "finish" their poll (which is often an indication of a push-poll). New York is anybody's best guess IMO, particularly considering that things can change by the day and it's still a ways off.

If they do a poll and only throw out those that aren't registered properly after tomorrow (and nobody else!), it might actually be remotely accurate. Any added tinkering beyond that is unhelpful. (Well, other than making sure they don't bias towards home phone over cell phone, etc.).

 

[The_Animus]

I knew I should have added... Not that it will matter a jot to those that hate are skeptical of her or politicians in general.

FTFY