Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[sunmaster14]

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.

Good analysis. I agree.

 

[uke2se]

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.

I heard the opposite explanation for why Bernie does well in caucuses. That is, that Bernie's supporters are motivated enough to spend considerable time and effort to vote at a caucus, while Clinton's wins in primaries are mostly due to people just having to show up to vote.

 

[Manopolus]

I heard the opposite explanation for why Bernie does well in caucuses. That is, that Bernie's supporters are motivated enough to spend considerable time and effort to vote at a caucus, while Clinton's wins in primaries are mostly due to people just having to show up to vote.

Well, we're certainly motivated enough. I think the problem is that sometimes we aren't organized well enough. I guess it can cut both ways.

 

[angrysoba]

So, apparently this happened: Clinton Campaign: No More Debates Until Sanders Starts Being Nicer

Excerpt:



Coming from the campaign that relied heavily on negative campaigning in the previous race, and has been decidedly negative throughout this one, that comes off as rather hypocritical.

Am I the only one who thinks this looks more like desperation? That she doesn't want to get hammered on issues in her hometown race, the one of three she needs to win in order to keep Sanders from further eroding her lead? Why would anyone in their right mind refuse to debate at this stage of the race unless they felt they had something to lose by doing so? Does she think that Trump or Cruz is going to play nice in the run up to the general election?

I like how he tried to spin the Sanders' campaign pointing out the problems with Clinton's politics as "negative" ads. This just sounds profoundly silly.

My take is that a front-runner is better off not making news, and a debate almost invariably does that. Whereas the chasing politician wants more exposure. It makes sense for Clinton to not want to debate and for Sanders to want to debate.

 

[ddt]

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.
That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

It seems that you're saying two things about (pledged) delegates.

First of all, that delegates in primary states matter more than those in caucus states, because there is wider voter participation in primaries than in caucuses. (well, you don't outright say that but I it seems implicit in various posts by various posters in this thread).

I think that very much depends on your viewpoint. Do you want a candidate that appeals to the activists (i.e., those who bother to show up at a caucus) or to the general electorate?

Second, that delegates in swing states matter more than those in solid blue or solid red states. Of course it's much more important to know which candidate will do better in, say, Florida, than in Kansas, which will vote red even if the GOP nominates the second coming of Hitler, or in Washington, which will vote blue even if the Democrats nominate LBJ's head-in-a-jar.

But in the end, the rules are: a delegate is a delegate is a delegate. No matter from which state they're coming, and no matter whether elected by caucus or by primary. Them's the rules, and whoever wins by that metric gets the nomination. If the Democratic party puts more value in which candidate is more popular in swing states, they would have given more delegates to Florida, Ohio, etc. But they haven't.

They can change their mind any time they want. A theory is they won't go against the pledged delegates, which would in effect disenfranchise the voters. The we'll see. I still think Bernie's chance of getting a majority on pledged delegates is a longshot BTW.

He certainly didn't diminish his chances this weekend and decreased his trailing by some 65 delegates. But if he wins in pledged delegates, which I agree is a longshot, it will be not a day earlier than California votes.

So will the superdelegates change their mind if that happens? Out of 712, a whopping 469 have expressed support for Hillary against 29 for Bernie. Eight years ago, Hillary was also leading in superdelegates, but by a much more modest margin, and moreover, Obama clinched a (small) lead much earlier in the primaries season so they had ample time to see the writing on the wall. Or will they argue, as above, that primary states are more important, or that swing states are more important and stick to Hillary?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Although the race has evolved in confusing ways, I still give about the same odds as half a year ago - 80-20 in favour of Hillary.

 

[varwoche]

I heard the opposite explanation for why Bernie does well in caucuses. That is, that Bernie's supporters are motivated enough to spend considerable time and effort to vote at a caucus, while Clinton's wins in primaries are mostly due to people just having to show up to vote.

Yes, this certainly aligns with history. Candidates with zealous supporters tend to do well in caucuses, e.g. Ron Paul and Pat Robertson.

 

[luchog]

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.

Well no, read the link. Bernie is doing better in states with younger voters; and that includes younger Black voters, who lean a few points toward Bernie in exit polls. Hillary also does better among religious voters, and younger voters are less likely to be religious. Her biggest wins so far have been the deep South, which is a much older and more religious voter demographic than the other states, where Bernie is pulling out bigger wins.

That was also my experience at the caucus, which was split far more along age lines than race/ethnicity; in fact, we had more black voters on the Sanders side than the Clinton side. The Clinton side were all middle-aged and older, while the Sanders side had the younger Black voters (and pretty much all the Hispanics and Asians).

 

[luchog]

My take is that a front-runner is better off not making news, and a debate almost invariably does that. Whereas the chasing politician wants more exposure. It makes sense for Clinton to not want to debate and for Sanders to want to debate.

There has been a bit of a backlash against Clinton because of that, however. Not so much for backing out of the debate, although she has been called on that in relation to her earlier statement that she wanted more debates and would show up for them; but for the "tone" justification. If it had not been for that particular comment, this would have ended up being an non-issue and just quietly disappearing; but it is definitely making news now. The reaction tag #tonedownforwhat is trending pretty strongly at the moment, though it remains to be seen how much that is actually going to hurt her campaign.

 

[luchog]

So will the superdelegates change their mind if that happens? Out of 712, a whopping 469 have expressed support for Hillary against 29 for Bernie. Eight years ago, Hillary was also leading in superdelegates, but by a much more modest margin, and moreover, Obama clinched a (small) lead much earlier in the primaries season so they had ample time to see the writing on the wall. Or will they argue, as above, that primary states are more important, or that swing states are more important and stick to Hillary?

There has been a bit of a backlash against the Hillary-supporting superdelegates; and one of them in my state is facing an already-tough battle against a progressive candidate, who is now seeing an upwelling of support after the incumbent declared that he was going to vote for Clinton regardless of the popular vote's overwhelming support for Sanders. If Sanders supporters can put pressure like this on the superdelegates, I think we might see more of them switch than expected at this point.

If Sanders does win the popular vote, and the superdelegates push the nomination over to Clinton, that is only going to hurt her campaign in the general election, since it will merely reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement among the younger voters who are the backbone of Sanders' campaign, that persistent meme that "voting doesn't accomplish anything". Too many have already insisted that they will not vote for Clinton under those circumstances, and are more likely to abstain from voting, than they are to make the effort to vote for her, or vote for a protest candidate. That would also have the larger effect of the Democratic party alienating younger voters, and either driving them to third parties, or out of the process entirely (which, given the current attitudes of the old-guard party establishment, is probably something they would consider desirable, given the anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and hard-left leanings of younger progressives).

 

[Donal]

Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America.

Isn't most of Wall Street Hillary's big lead based on her victories in deeply red states? Or do you think she will carry Texas in November?

 

[wareyin]

There has been a bit of a backlash against the Hillary-supporting superdelegates; and one of them in my state is facing an already-tough battle against a progressive candidate, who is now seeing an upwelling of support after the incumbent declared that he was going to vote for Clinton regardless of the popular vote's overwhelming support for Sanders. If Sanders supporters can put pressure like this on the superdelegates, I think we might see more of them switch than expected at this point.

If Sanders does win the popular vote, and the superdelegates push the nomination over to Clinton, that is only going to hurt her campaign in the general election, since it will merely reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement among the younger voters who are the backbone of Sanders' campaign, that persistent meme that "voting doesn't accomplish anything". Too many have already insisted that they will not vote for Clinton under those circumstances, and are more likely to abstain from voting, than they are to make the effort to vote for her, or vote for a protest candidate. That would also have the larger effect of the Democratic party alienating younger voters, and either driving them to third parties, or out of the process entirely (which, given the current attitudes of the old-guard party establishment, is probably something they would consider desirable, given the anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and hard-left leanings of younger progressives).

Don't worry. The chances of the highlighted happening are virtually nil, so the rest of the postulated is void.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There has been a bit of a backlash against the Hillary-supporting superdelegates; and one of them in my state is facing an already-tough battle against a progressive candidate, who is now seeing an upwelling of support after the incumbent declared that he was going to vote for Clinton regardless of the popular vote's overwhelming support for Sanders. If Sanders supporters can put pressure like this on the superdelegates, I think we might see more of them switch than expected at this point.

Based on your anecdotal evidence of one person who made a foolish remark ? Good luck.

If Sanders does win the popular vote, and the superdelegates push the nomination over to Clinton, that is only going to hurt her campaign in the general election, since it will merely reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement among the younger voters who are the backbone of Sanders' campaign, that persistent meme that "voting doesn't accomplish anything". Too many have already insisted that they will not vote for Clinton under those circumstances, and are more likely to abstain from voting, than they are to make the effort to vote for her, or vote for a protest candidate. That would also have the larger effect of the Democratic party alienating younger voters, and either driving them to third parties, or out of the process entirely (which, given the current attitudes of the old-guard party establishment, is probably something they would consider desirable, given the anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and hard-left leanings of younger progressives).

If IFs and BUTs were candy and nuts, oh what a Christmas there would be.

 

[wareyin]

Isn't most of Wall Street Hillary's big lead based on her victories in deeply red states? Or do you think she will carry Texas in November?

Swing states this year: Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. Sanders won New Hampshire and Colorado. Five out of seven were won by Clinton.

 

[luchog]

Isn't most of Wall Street Hillary's big lead based on her victories in deeply red states? Or do you think she will carry Texas in November?

That will depend greatly on who the Republicans field for their candidate. At this point, it's looking like Trump, which means that there is no reliable way to tell, since he is such a wild card who is simultaneously motivating and alienating large chunks of the GOP and swing voter demographics. It will really depend on how badly Trump alienates the key Black, Hispanic, and female voter demographics by that point.

Should she end up facing Cruz, I think it highly likely that the entire South will go Red, with the possible exception of Missouri. The South has consistently voted predominantly Red since the mid-1960s, with the sole exception of the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter, where they went Blue. However, Carter at the time was a "favorite son" of the South, against Nixon leftover Gerald Ford, who was not at all well-liked or respected, even by his own party. That win has not come close to being repeated since, even by Obama; and the South went back to hard Red against Carter in his runoff against Ronald Reagan. Cruz is not universally well-liked by the GOP; but I think he'd pull a stronger backing of party-line voters in a run against Clinton than against Sanders, given Sanders' working-class populist appeal.

Should a contested GOP convention end up putting forward Kasich as their candidate, I think the South and much of the Midwest would be a complete writeoff for Clinton, and we'd be looking at another GOP president; albeit one rather more amenable to reason and progressive causes than either Trump or Cruz. I just don't think she has the support necessary to overcome a moderate Republican given how her campaign has alienated the progressive left, and the problems she has in public image. Obama had the advantage of running against a religious-right-leaning candidate with an utter nutjob for a running-mate. A Clinton vs. Kasich competition would put the advantage strongly on the GOP side. Fortunately for her, that is the least likely outcome of the GOP race. I think at this point we're looking at Trump picking up an overwhelming share of delegates well before the convention.

 

[luchog]

Swing states this year: Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. Sanders won New Hampshire and Colorado. Five out of seven were won by Clinton.

A primary against another Democratic candidate is not a good predictor of a general election against a Republican candidate.

 

[Manopolus]

Swing states this year: Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. Sanders won New Hampshire and Colorado. Five out of seven were won by Clinton.

Two of those (Iowa and Nevada) were more-or-less ties. Furthermore, a Trump candidacy blows away all the "swing state" nonsense anyway. Kansas (and some others) would likely go to the libertarian candidate. My area went to the libertarian ticket in the last election as it was. Other less red states will likely swing blue. Parts of the rust belt might go red though.

 

[wareyin]

Two of those (Iowa and Nevada) were more-or-less ties.

Yes, Clinton winning is a tie to someone in the Sanders bubble, but it was a win. Further, the Clinton's wins in Florida alone by delegates or votes obliterates Sanders wins in both his States combined.

 

[wareyin]

A primary against another Democratic candidate is not a good predictor of a general election against a Republican candidate.

The complaint was that Clinton is only winning red States. The evidence shows that she's also won more swing States.

 

[Manopolus]

Yes, Clinton winning is a tie to someone in the Sanders bubble, but it was a win. Further, the Clinton's wins in Florida alone by delegates or votes obliterates Sanders wins in both his States combined.

Please quit trying to make a caricature of everyone that supports the subject of this thread. That's just plain inappropriate. If you want to attack someone, maybe you should concentrate on the candidate himself instead of boxing everyone that supports him into a monolithic stereotype that isn't even realistic, much less accurate.

All I said was that they were virtual ties. So was Michigan, if it makes you feel any better (and Illinois, and Missouri). There's no bias anywhere in that statement. It's a simple statement of fact.