Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Trakar]

MSNBC is, expectedly, all Hillary, all day!

CNN surprisingly balanced and actually watchable...feels twilight zone-y!

...turns TV back off.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

LOL, showing one precinct for King County so far (Seattle). It's 1-1 with apparently only two participants. That can't be right. That would be ridiculous.

AP calls Alaska for Sanders -- my watch site shows him with 78.7% of the vote with 15/40 precincts reporting.

Those are delegate votes, not individual votes. For example we had 26 people in our individual precinct but the size of the precinct meant we had 2 delegates or rather what would appear as 2 votes reported.

 

[Manopolus]

Those are delegate votes, not individual votes. For example we had 26 people in our individual precinct but the size of the precinct meant we had 2 delegates or rather what would appear as 2 votes reported.

This site is showing delegates and votes separately. No delegates have been assigned for Washington on the site yet.

Huffington Post is where I'm watching it.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-03-26

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

MSNBC is, expectedly, all Hillary, all day!

CNN surprisingly balanced and actually watchable...feels twilight zone-y!

...turns TV back off.

You have not been watching it all day because they've been talking about Sanders' path to win, his momentum, etc etc. Honestly you guys, you hear the words, Clinton is ahead, which she is and you go whining the coverage isn't fair.

Both CNN and MSNBC are going to cover Sanders' Wisconsin speech, probably in it's entirety. Only Fox is showing something else.

I'll just post this again: Clinton is beating Sanders. Don't blame the party, blame the people

Progressives are keen to portray Bernie Sanders as a victim of machinations by party elites. But his real problem is that he isn’t getting enough votes

He is behind in votes, period, end of story.

 

[jimbob]

I understand your perspective, but I feel differently. Politically, I see little difference between Hillary and Kasich aside form the words they use when speaking to their bases. Which means that if they were the Dem and Rep candidates, I would vote for Dr. Stein. Cruz, I agree with you, full blown apocalyptic dominionist Canadian-American jihadist. Trump, however, is more of a chaotic wildcard. He has been saying a lot of offensively crazy stuff and quite a bit of insanely offensive stuff during the primaries that have actually positioned him with a strong lead among the GOP base. But as he begins to pivot for a general election run, we are starting to hear more movement to the center. I don't think that Trump really buys into the full hardcore fundamentalist social and economic conservatism fringe that has corrupted much of the GOP. Not that I would vote for him, but neither do I fear him as much as both the establishment Republican party members and the establishment Democratic party members seem to.



My primary issue with Hillary is the issue you mention, I feel that I have zero trust in what she says. I can't vote for someone when I doubt, question, and have no faith in anything which they state or profess.

A Cruz v Clinton general, is the only one which would give me serious pause and problems as to what I would do in November.

Saying that he can't be as crazy as he seems is a bit of a lame hope.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This site is showing delegates and votes separately. No delegates have been assigned for Washington on the site yet.

Huffington Post is where I'm watching it.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-03-26

I don't know how HuffPo can do that when I don't think delegate states report the popular vote. But not only that, there is no precinct in the entire King County that has only 2 individual voters.

Edited to add: No, those are precinct delegates not individuals. Precinct delegates are not the same as the eventual state delegates.

 

[Manopolus]

I don't know how HuffPo can do that when I don't think delegate states report the popular vote. But not only that, there is no precinct in the entire King County that has only 2 individual voters.

Edited to add: No, those are precinct delegates not individuals. Precinct delegates are not the same as the eventual state delegates.

I'm pretty sure they actually do report the vote count. How would it be verifiable otherwise? My own precinct did some shady math at our caucus, making it a tie in precinct delegates -- but that was overturned later. The guy running the whole show was quite obviously a Clinton supporter, and various arguments ensued. I left before anything was fully resolved, but I think the change came from somewhere outside of the precinct. It was a bizarre situation where Sanders won like 150-105 or something, but somehow someone translated that into a 3-3 tie with 6 delegates to assign. That was in Kansas though.

It may be that they averaged it out with another district or something to get the extra delegate in there. I don't know exactly what the solution was. The problem was that you can't have only one delegate difference with an even number -- it's either 4-2 or 3-3. Eventually, it was 4-2, but that wasn't what I was told when I left.

 

[Trakar]

Saying that he can't be as crazy as he seems is a bit of a lame hope.

You misunderstand, I count on him being true to his historic form.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm pretty sure they actually do report the vote count. How would it be verifiable otherwise? My own precinct did some shady math at our caucus, making it a tie in precinct delegates -- but that was overturned later. The guy running the whole show was quite obviously a Clinton supporter, and various arguments ensued. I left before anything was fully resolved, but I think the change came from somewhere outside of the precinct. It was a bizarre situation where Sanders won like 150-105 or something, but somehow someone translated that into a 3-3 tie with 6 delegates to assign. That was in Kansas though.

It may be that they averaged it out with another district or something to get the extra delegate in there. I don't know exactly what the solution was. The problem was that you can't have only one delegate difference with an even number -- it's either 4-2 or 3-3. Eventually, it was 4-2, but that wasn't what I was told when I left.

Why don't you check before you tell us what you think is logical. This has already come up, it's been discussed and you are wrong.

 

[Manopolus]

Why don't you check before you tell us what you think is logical. This has already come up, it's been discussed and you are wrong.

I've already posted Kansas caucus results somewhere in here. It did show actual votes, not just delegates. I can go look for it if you'd like.


Here you go: http://www.kansasdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Results-by-Senate-District-Sheet1-1.pdf

Mine was district (CD1) 36a.

As far as I know, they may have flipped a coin to solve the argument. It was obviously NOT anywhere close to a tie though.

 

[Trakar]

Bernie!

Good Job all!

G'nite

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've already posted Kansas caucus results somewhere in here. It did show actual votes, not just delegates. I can go look for it if you'd like.


Here you go: http://www.kansasdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Results-by-Senate-District-Sheet1-1.pdf

Mine was district (CD1) 36a.

As far as I know, they may have flipped a coin to solve the argument. It was obviously NOT anywhere close to a tie though.

First off, that does not make the numbers you were looking at a popular vote vs a precinct delegate vote.

Second, a few caucus states release the raw numbers. They don't all. And they don't report populat votes right away.

Here's your challenge, find these states' popular votes:

Iowa
Maine
Nevada

 

[Unlike a Bull]

Great numbers for Bernie so far today. He needs to perform as well in the rest of the states if he wants to have a chance of being the nominee. New York will be interesting. It's Hillary's "home" state and she was their senator and anecdotally people there seem happy with her. But it's also a blue state and Bernie has done well in previous blue States.

He's got a long row to hoe, but mathematically, he's still in it.

 

[Manopolus]

First off, that does not make the numbers you were looking at a popular vote vs a precinct delegate vote.

Second, a few caucus states release the raw numbers. They don't all. And they don't report populat votes right away.

Here's your challenge, find these states' popular votes:

Iowa
Maine
Nevada

All right then, I don't claim to know everything. What I will mention is that Alaska, on the page I mentioned, lists "SCDs" as the count below the map instead of "votes" (which Washington does), so I would assume that Washington is one of those that releases the popular vote, and Alaska is not. I'm not going to go back and look for it (although it is possible to do so), but I assume that Iowa, etc. were done the same way on the site if they don't release the actual vote numbers to the public.

It's either that or the Huffington Post has their heads up their cabooses.

I also can't figure out how Okanogan County would have 177 precinct delegates to assign if I'm wrong about it being the popular vote. That's out of a total population of 41k county wide.

 

[luchog]

Looks like Sanders is leading by around 75% in Washington with about a third of the precincts reporting.

ETA: NYT is calling it a win for Sanders, he's up by 79% in Alaska with 73% reporting, and 74% in WA with 45% reporting. Everyone has been saying that he needs 58% or better to overcome Clinton's lead, and it looks like we're seeing that, as predicted, with WA a moderately large state where he has a huge lead. It looks like other western states are likely to follow suit. The real test will be NY, PA, and CA. I'm willing to bet on CA going to go to Sanders at a smaller margin, possibly less than 60%; PA and NY up for grabs, though Clinton does have the clear advantage in NY. Definitely not over yet. And being that CA is far larger than any others, and among the last to vote, this is very likely going to come down to the wire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All right then, I don't claim to know everything. What I will mention is that Alaska, on the page I mentioned, lists "SCDs" as the count below the map instead of "votes" (which Washington does), so I would assume that Washington is one of those that releases the popular vote, and Alaska is not. I'm not going to go back and look for it (although it is possible to do so), but I assume that Iowa, etc. were done the same way on the site if they don't release the actual vote numbers to the public.

It's either that or the Huffington Post has their heads up their cabooses.

Dude, learn to give up and just say, "Oh."

There are close to 3/4 of a million people in the City of Seattle and over 4 million when you throw in the suburbs. There are no precincts in this entire county that will have only 2 voters showing up.

 

[Manopolus]

Dude, learn to give up and just say, "Oh."

There are close to 3/4 of a million people in the City of Seattle and over 4 million when you throw in the suburbs. There are no precincts in this entire county that will have only 2 voters showing up.

Sorry, I edited this part in later:

I also can't figure out how Okanogan County would have 177 precinct delegates to assign if I'm wrong about it being the popular vote. That's out of a total population of 41k county wide.

Yes, I know that it would be absolutely wrong for only 2 voters to show up at a Seattle precinct. That's why I mentioned it in the first place. It was obviously wrong, and also inconsistent with what I was seeing elsewhere on the map.

Compare that also to Spokane County with 2/7 precincts reporting showing a 700-174 vote count (yes, that's a lovely 80% so far for Sanders, too). King county has 5/17 precincts showing now, so I don't know if it's been corrected because it doesn't divide it up that way. At the moment, it's showing 2,354 to 1,150 in favor of Sanders for the county (but only 5/17 precincts counted).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoops, math is off:

So very rough numbers assuming Sanders will get the same percentage of superdelegates as pledged:

75% of 118 (WA) = 89-Sanders; 29-Clinton
80% of 20 (AK) = 16-Sanders; 4-Clinton
And taking a wild guess at HI's 35 delegates using AK's percentages = 28-Sanders; 7-Clinton

Corrected: Total: 133-Sanders; 40-Clinton gives Sanders a net gain of 93

He is currently behind 294 in pledged delegates and even though I added in pledged and superdelegates giving Sanders the benefit of his actual vote count, he remains more than 200 pledged delegates behind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I edited this part in later:



Yes, I know that it would be absolutely wrong for only 2 voters to show up at a Seattle precinct. That's why I mentioned it in the first place. It was obviously wrong, and also inconsistent with what I was seeing elsewhere on the map.

Compare that also to Spokane County with 2/7 precincts reporting showing a 700-174 vote count (yes, that's a lovely 80% so far for Sanders, too). King county has 5/17 precincts showing now, so I don't know if it's been corrected because it doesn't divide it up that way. At the moment, it's showing 2,354 to 1,150 in favor of Sanders for the county (but only 5/17 precincts counted).

Are you still confused that a precinct delegate vote is not a popular vote?

 

[Ammonitida]

So very rough numbers assuming Sanders will get the same percentage of superdelegates as pledged:

75% of 118 (WA) = 89-Sanders; 29-Clinton
80% of 20 (AK) = 16-Sanders; 4-Clinton
And taking a wild guess at HI's 35 delegates using AK's percentages = 28-Sanders; 7-Clinton

Total: 113-Sanders; 40-Clinton gives Sanders a net gain of 73

He is currently behind 294 in pledged delegates and even though I added in pledged and superdelegates giving Sanders the benefit of his actual vote count, he remains more than 200 pledged delegates behind.

This is looking seriously bad for Hillary.