Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

FTFY

You may or may not hate Clinton but a lot of Sanders supporters are convinced she's the devil incarnate.

And Sanders' campaign that she's taken Wall St money when he can't name a single vote or quid pro quo she made in exchange for that money is fueling the hate. The fact the money was the going rate for an-ex SoS or other people of her stature is conveniently not mentioned. Instead Sanders makes it sound like the amount was outrageous for a speech so there must be shenanigans, it sucks.

 

[Manopolus]

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

It's still an indication of what the results might be. I'd suspect it's a better indicator than an old poll that included Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden as possible choices.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

FTFY

You may or may not hate Clinton but a lot of Sanders supporters are convinced she's the devil incarnate.

And Sanders' campaign that she's taken Wall St money when he can't name a single vote or quid pro quo she made in exchange for that money is fueling the hate. The fact the money was the going rate for an-ex SoS or other people of her stature is conveniently not mentioned. Instead Sanders makes it sound like the amount was outrageous for a speech so there must be shenanigans.

Attack by innuendo, that's been the bulk of the attacks on Clinton and Sanders is doing a lot of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's still an indication of what the results might be.

No it isn't. Why do you keep making up your own evidence?

 

[Manopolus]

No it isn't. Why do you keep making up your own evidence?

Pointing to a possible indicator is not "making up your own evidence." There is a likely correlation there. Admittedly it can't be quantified, but it is a possible factor that can give us an indication of what the results might be. My posts have even included the margins by which the marijuana referendums passed, and Colorado's primary results, so there hasn't been any lack of defining the factor on my part. We even have a good idea of what the different positions are between the two candidates.

No, we can't precisely quantify it, but it does qualify as evidence, nonetheless. It's also not "made up." Everything I noted correlates to conditions which exist in the real world. "Making up" evidence would be like if I just claimed that half the people in Washington are aliens from Planet X and that Planet X prefers Sanders.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Oh gee, a Clinton Precinct Captain is pumping out pro-Clinton propaganda in the Bernie Sanders thread.

Color me shocked.

 

[Maya22]

You may or may not hate Clinton but a lot of Sanders supporters are convinced she's the devil incarnate.

Not me! Trump and Cruz are the devils. Ann Coulter too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pointing to a possible indicator is not "making up your own evidence." There is a likely correlation there. Admittedly it can't be quantified, but it is a possible factor that can give us an indication of what the results might be. My posts have even included the margins by which the marijuana referendums passed, and Colorado's primary results, so there hasn't been any lack of defining the factor on my part. We even have a good idea of what the different positions are between the two candidates.

No, we can't precisely quantify it, but it does qualify as evidence, nonetheless. It's also not "made up." Everything I noted correlates to conditions which exist in the real world. "Making up" evidence would be like if I just claimed that half the people in Washington are aliens from Planet X (as an extreme example) and that Planet X prefers Sanders.

Here's how an hypothesis works. You make careful objective observations. You use those observations to suggest an explanation or relationship and then you test your hypothesis.

Here's how superstition works. You suggest an explanation or a relationship based on no data. Then you develop your hypothesis and tell people it is evidence.

 

[Manopolus]

Here's how an hypothesis works. You make careful objective observations. You use those observations to suggest an explanation or relationship and then you test your hypothesis.

Here's how superstition works. You suggest an explanation or a relationship based on no data. Then you develop your hypothesis and tell people it is evidence.

So... I haven't provided evidence? On the contrary, I've been quite thorough on this particular issue. In terms of which of your definitions our recent conversation fits, it's pretty clear that it's closer the former. As mentioned, I have shown the votes on the referendums, Colorado's results, and (with your help) their relative positions on the issue. It stands to reason that there will be a correlation.

We can't have perfect evidence of much of anything until there's an actual vote. That will come shortly -- 2 days left.

 

[Maya22]

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=292158ccca5890b81aea58f76d3c8912&oe=574AEAFC

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5.

 

[Manopolus]

If you'd like further evidence, Washington is a caucus state. Hillary has only won in two of those (Iowa and Nevada), and they were close. Bernie has won seven, most of those by large margins (the least of them - Colorado and Nebraska - at around 60/40). Incidentally, the other two states to vote on Saturday (Alaska and Hawaii) are also caucus states. Caucus states don't have to pre-register for the party in question, or even register at all prior to the caucus last I knew, so one of the advantages that Hillary has some places doesn't exist in this circumstance (A.K.A. voter suppression, whether it was Hillary that caused it or not -- obviously she didn't). There may be some variation on this (dunno). Let me know if Washington has a different policy than the one I'm familiar with. In Kansas (and also in Iowa, as I remember), you could register to vote at the caucus and be counted. I think that's pretty common (or possibly even a rule) for caucuses.

Also, a Saturday vote frees up a lot of people that would otherwise have to work. The under 45 vote will be larger than a Tuesday vote would give us (or that's what logic would dictate). That demographic has polled at over 70% for Bernie.

Is this all "made up" as well?

 

[luchog]

And Sanders' campaign that she's taken Wall St money when he can't name a single vote or quid pro quo she made in exchange for that money is fueling the hate.

Because everyone knows that is the only way that influence works.

 

[luchog]

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.

Crap, I already have the "well poisoning" and "ad hominem" spaces on my fallacy bingo card filled.

And I've already addressed that question. Repeatedly. See my previous two posts that you've responded to but not really read.

I expect this kind of behaviour from a troll like Scrut; but you've managed to completely erode all the respect I had for you.

 

[luchog]

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.

Did I? Where did I say that? Quote and link please.

 

[luchog]

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

How many times has it been claimed in this thread? I'll wait.

In the meantime, if you want to debate those claims, maybe you should go talk to the people actually making them.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Oh gee, a Clinton Precinct Captain is pumping out pro-Clinton propaganda in the Bernie Sanders thread.

Color me shocked.

Not just the Sanders thread, every thread.

But to her credit, she has made a full disclosure; she's working for team Pantsuit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because everyone knows that is the only way that influence works.

I know how it works. I also know how accusation by innuendo works.

Clinton accepted speaking fees when she was out of office for the going rate for a woman of her stature. Ex-Senator, ex-Secretary of State, not running for any office at the time and Sanders implies the fees were out of the norm and must mean they were bribing her for something.

No, she got the same fees that a man with those qualifications would have been paid. It was the going rate. Does Sanders say, "I know it was the going rate, but...?" No, he implies it was this outrageous obviously bribery payment.

He can't name a thing. That's how it works, accusation by innuendo because that's all you got. Because there isn't any evidence of a quid pro quo.


Yes, I know how it works. And I'm opting for an experienced POTUS that also knows how to work the system over an idealistic POTUS who thinks the public is going to rise up and overthrow the status quo.

Claiming Clinton must be corrupt and against the common person because she works within the system ignores her actual record.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Crap, I already have the "well poisoning" and "ad hominem" spaces on my fallacy bingo card filled.

And I've already addressed that question. Repeatedly. See my previous two posts that you've responded to but not really read.

I expect this kind of behaviour from a troll like Scrut; but you've managed to completely erode all the respect I had for you.

So is the well poisoning mentioning the fact you and the other very proSanders posters in this forum are in denial about the negative ads Sanders has yet to endure or is that the straw man?

Or is this about the flood of people on the Net on sites like Reddit claiming they were registered Democrats when they may have just forgotten they originally registered as independents the well poison or straw man?

 

[Manopolus]

Or is this about the flood of people on the Net on sites like Reddit claiming they were registered Democrats when they may have just forgotten they originally registered as independents the well poison or straw man?

...except that some of them actually had physical proof of the fact that they had registered as democrats, and were still given provisional ballots that have not been counted.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...s-and-Suppression-in-Arizona#comment_60523901

People brought their hard copy voter ID with the correct affiliation and were still not allowed to vote with a regular ballot.

Yeah, I know... it's KOS, but still.

I'm going to stop short of saying that Sanders should have won Arizona. However, I do think it's apparent that the vote totals were compromised, from what I know about the situation. Even if a majority failed to register in time (which doesn't seem to be the case), it is still a situation of Hillary winning (at the counted totals) on a technicality related to voter suppression through the regulatory process.

Lawful Evil is still evil. The fact that it's lawful doesn't make it fit the definition of good or even neutral.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know how it works. I also know how accusation by innuendo works.

Clinton accepted speaking fees when she was out of office for the going rate for a woman of her stature. Ex-Senator, ex-Secretary of State, not running for any office at the time and Sanders implies the fees were out of the norm and must mean they were bribing her for something.

No, she got the same fees that a man with those qualifications would have been paid. It was the going rate. Does Sanders say, "I know it was the going rate, but...?" No, he implies it was this outrageous obviously bribery payment.

He can't name a thing. That's how it works, accusation by innuendo because that's all you got. Because there isn't any evidence of a quid pro quo.

well we don't know because the scumbag won't release her transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, so why don't you peddle your pro-Hillary spam elsewhere, Precinct Captain?