• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

sunmaster14 said:
You must be including superdelegates. By my calculations, he only needs 57% to 43% of the remaining popular vote to win the pledged delegates. If he gets that, the superdelegates will most likely switch to give him his victory. There is actually no doubt in my mind about that. Can he get 57%? Probably not. But it's not impossible. And campaigning has this positive feedback aspect to it. Some call it a preference cascade. The better Sanders does, the more attractive he starts looking to people who are undecided or weakly decided. Before the last run of states, I thought Bernie had no path to victory except via an FBI created deus ex machina (which is not out of the question at all). Now, however, I think Clinton may just blow up on her own. I'm not saying it's likely. I think it's still very unlikely. I'd put it at the 10%-15% level.



Utahans are not typical red-staters. I think they recognize Trump for the immoral hedonist that he is. And Utah is fairly insulated from illegal immigration, so Trump's most successful talking point has little sway with them.
Click to expand...

Yes, superdelegates are counted. Are you aware that superdelegates include people from the states she's won (more states) and sitting senators, congressmen, goverrnors? My calculating logic (and calculating is meant in both ways) is that short of a bombshell (indictment, for instance) as her total (including superdelegates) closes on 2383, those people are less and less likely to change their support. Perception is everything, and as long as her total (incl. sd) has her ahead, there will be no major movement.

We'll have to disagree about Utah. I think they're western redneck Republicans and voting socialist is not on the agenda.
 
The whole "point" of superdelegates is that they're above the hoi polloi, so we can expect a bit of bigger picture view by them. Which could mean voting for her Entitledness, or voting in spirit of keeping a young grass roots voting base enthusiastic, or something else.

We'll see. I think you're up for some surprises not only in that aspect of 21st century Yankistan while diving back into it.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
In January Clinton agreed to 4 additional debates, one each month through May. If she chooses to reneg. now, it will be up to her to deal with the backlash. I certainly understand her fears, but the people really don't trust her or respect her word now, so I guess it's just Hillary being Hillary.
Click to expand...

No one's refused to debate in April. This is a Bernie campaign ploy. Bernie wants a debate before NY. I don't disagree. But claiming that "she agreed" is just wrong. She agreed to a debate per month. Not a debate right before the big primaries. Is Bernie going to demand the May debate be on the 30th, 'cuz that's closest to the CA primary date?

Berenson, IMHO, is just firing a shot across Bernie's bow. "Rein in the Bern Boyz!"
 
Foolmewunz said:
No one's refused to debate in April. This is a Bernie campaign ploy. Bernie wants a debate before NY. I don't disagree. But claiming that "she agreed" is just wrong. She agreed to a debate per month. Not a debate right before the big primaries. Is Bernie going to demand the May debate be on the 30th, 'cuz that's closest to the CA primary date?

Berenson, IMHO, is just firing a shot across Bernie's bow. "Rein in the Bern Boyz!"
Click to expand...

Seriously, what exactly would be the purpose of a debate temporally distant or after the largest primaries coming up? Might as well wait till next January.
Personally, If Berenson is actually thinking about bringing the party together behind either of these candidates, comments like this are not productive, and are more inciteful than harmonious.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Seriously, what exactly would be the purpose of a debate temporally distant or after, the largest primaries coming up. Might as well wait till next January.
Click to expand...

Berenson's comments are Machiavellian. Instead of letting Bernie's team soap-box the topic in the belief that the electorate will rally behind it, he's tossed it back to them. How they respond will be interesting, but however they do so, they now look like supplicants.

What's Hillary got to lose? People will see her as arrogant? People already do. Heck, she might get some Trump voters with that move.

Personally, If Berenson is actually thinking about bringing the party together behind either of these candidates, comments like this are not productive, and are more inciteful than harmonious.
Click to expand...

What would make you think Berenson's aim was to get the party behind "one of"(a choice) them? He's interested in getting Hillary past 2383, at present. But the fact that you are so emotionally invested that you see it as an incitement is not really surprising. They're not playing to you or me. They're playing to voters with perhaps a passing interest in the topic.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Libya and Syria are wonderful complements to the disgraceful historic stupidity of Bush invading Iraq. We're going to get more of the same with Hillary as president and I think that more important than Bernie trash-talking nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Do you really think that everything in the world is controlled by the US?

Libya exploded, by itself, no help from the US and was well involved before NATO, led by France, actually got involved. But somehow that's all the US and in particularly Hillary's fault right?

As for Syria, the US has hardly even gotten involved in that. They supplied some guns and trained two dozen people, and that's about the sum total of their involvement.

Based on your post the US is wrong and at fault when it invades and starts a war, is also wrong and at fault doesn't invade but takes a side and actively helps them from the air as part of a command lead by another country, and is also wrong and at fault when it doesn't get involved in the war at all.

I guess you do like to make sure that you have all your bases covered.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Berenson, IMHO, is just firing a shot across Bernie's bow. "Rein in the Bern Boyz!"
Click to expand...

Good grief. I don't think anyone would deny that Bernie isn't being nearly as aggressive as he could be about Clinton's record. If anything, it's almost like he's trying to avoid it. The only attacks that he will do are the ones that fit in with his overall message. So how the hell is it that he needs to "tone down" his message? It's quite clearly Clinton that has been using opposition research -- to no avail.

There are so many things he could be attacking her on - and isn't - that it's ridiculous to accuse him of being too aggressive. She's got so much low-hanging fruit lying around that it's hard to even know where to begin.

And yes, I am seriously offended by the Clinton (and Clinton associates) characterizations of Bernie supporters all being sexist white males. That just needs to freaking stop, because it's quite simply neither true nor fair. The whole playing the victim thing (feminist outrage variety) won't get her anywhere with me other than losing my vote entirely if she gets the nomination. Bernie is not exactly a misogynist, and neither are the vast majority of his supporters. And let's face it, the "race gap" going on here is likely actually a religion gap -- the vast majority of Non-Christians in The Democratic Party are college educated white people, and Bernie would be the first openly Non-Christian president every bit as much as Clinton would be the first female president. Also, white religious bigots generally vote Republican. That's not true of racial minorities that have the same bias.
 
Last edited:
I am not a sexist white male, lol. If I were to suddenly become male, my husband would probably say "let's just be friends"

I am 7/8 white (ancestors from various European countries.) and 1/8 Asian
 
uke2se said:
It's not garbage that Bernie has had a problem with getting non-whites to vote for him. That doesn't mean no non-whites do.
Click to expand...

Yes, but does the media have to keep reporting on it like it's a racial issue? It isn't. I think it's more of a religious difference and an educational difference, as I said in the post before the one you quoted. The racial divide is a non-sequitur to what is really going on. Skin color has nothing to do with it -- it's an incidental correlation.

What's really happening is that the beatnik/intellectual/coffee shop/hippy crowd votes for Bernie. The more church-related activist crowd doesn't. It has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with organizational methods and social structures.

The fact that it's true doesn't make it relevant or worthy of reporting. Skin color differences are not the cause of the correlation, and it has absolutely ZERO to do with any perceived difference on civil rights issues related to race.
 
Last edited:
How about the media reporting regularly that Hillary does well with the black voters? Is that code for ****** lover? Or are they just reporting the demographics.

Bernie does better in the whiter states. Get over it. Find out why, when he has appeal to the talking (tweeting) heads among BLM, he doesn't resound with the rank and file. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Stop blaming the messenger.
 
Foolmewunz said:
How about the media reporting regularly that Hillary does well with the black voters? Is that code for ****** lover? Or are they just reporting the demographics.

Bernie does better in the whiter states. Get over it. Find out why, when he has appeal to the talking (tweeting) heads among BLM, he doesn't resound with the rank and file. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Stop blaming the messenger.
Click to expand...

I don't think they need to report on split racial demographics in the media at all when it's not pertinent. That's my point. Also, there isn't really anything anybody can do about it that hasn't been tried, unless Bernie wants to suddenly convert to Southern Baptist and go to a black church or something. The good news is that the worst of the bias is in states that have already voted.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I don't think they need to report on split racial demographics in the media at all when it's not pertinent. That's my point. Also, there isn't really anything anybody can do about it that hasn't been tried, unless Bernie wants to suddenly convert to Southern Baptist and go to a black church or something. The good news is that the worst of the bias is in states that have already voted.
Click to expand...

Well, you're just in it for the short haul, then? Should the next progressives follow Bernie's broken model? He should've never conceded the south in the first place.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, you're just in it for the short haul, then? Should the next progressives follow Bernie's broken model? He should've never conceded the south in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. Given that he actually was campaigning at the time, perhaps lost votes in The South meant more votes elsewhere.
 
To be honest, I think Bernie's worst inadequacy (campaign-wise) is that his voters aren't used to being particularly organized. Sometimes they don't get registered or change their registration quickly enough to vote as a democrat in a primary, for instance. With first-time voters and young people you get that. That's why his victories in the caucuses have tended to be rather high, and the primaries haven't quite followed the same pattern. In a caucus, all you really have to do is show up. This is also part of why we hear so many complaints from the Bernie side about the process. Most of them aren't particularly experienced in the whole voting thing.

I also think his campaign is adjusting to that problem somewhat.
 
Last edited:
From interviews I've heard with voters Clintons huge lead among blacks is largely about name recognition combined with low information.

Though every candidate has its share of low information voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom