Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[wareyin]

At some point, the Sanders supporters are going to have to face the fact that their candidate is not doing well because Sanders is just not as popular as they think, not because there is a conspiracy against him.

 

[angrysoba]

At some point, the Sanders supporters are going to have to face the fact that their candidate is not doing well because Sanders is just not as popular as they think, not because there is a conspiracy against him.

That's what the lying media and the lying polls (paid for by Clinton, mind you!) are trying to tell you!

 

[wareyin]

That's what the lying media and the lying polls (paid for by Clinton, mind you!) are trying to tell you!

Looks like it's time for Sanders supporters to believe polls, again! Sanders is now projected to win Wisconsin! Of course, the projection is by 49.4% to Clinton's 48.2%, and Sanders needs a win of 66%58% to have any hope of staying in it.

 

[Donal]

I don't think there is some cabal going to out to sabotage Sanders on purpose, but machine politics are a very real thing. The system is set up to favor the establishment's favored candidate. That is the whole purpose of super delegates.

This was supposed to be Hillary's victory lap. A formality on her way to coronation as the nominee. It is finally "her turn" and the DNC has no intention of making it possible for anyone else to usurp her again. And neither do their friends in the media.

So, while they aren't intentionally throwing boulders in Sanders' way, its not like they paved a smooth path for him the way they did Wall Street Hill.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a feeling that you're asking this of the same people who thought the explanation for exploiting the open back door in the voter database (Bern Boyz - Iowa - 2016) was just reasonable. "No wrongdoing there; everybody does it." That, of course, was after a week of denial that anything wrong was done at all.

And going on and on about the DNC's initial reaction to shut the door which was legit by any standard, which was only for a brief time while the facts were sorted and a solution found. Apparently Sanders has yet to drop his lawsuit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw it and read it. Maybe you didn't see that I was originally asking Bob, not you, which is why I amended my question when his answer was unsatisfactory. His more recent answer is, so I'm ok with it.

I thought his answer was very satisfactory. Maybe you didn't understand the point. Number of cases is not relevant if they are not actually a verifiable purposeful act of sabotage of Sanders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if there is a consistent pattern of benefit [accusations].
...
It's not any single incident or quality that makes them look suspicious, it's the overall pattern. ...

So far we have the debate schedule which amounted to zip. There was the data base kerfuffle that the Sanders camp was responsible for and for which being locked out was very brief and was defensible given the circumstances.

There are the superdelegates and it's been pointed out again and again they have never changed the outcome of the popular vote and Clinton is ahead in popular vote anyway.

There have been claims of media coverage bias using only minutes on air or time the candidate was being discussed but there is no attempt to divide up positive vs negative coverage.

Any time Sanders has a positive sign it's described as a sign "Clinton is in trouble" or, "Is this going to be a repeat of 2008." One national poll (Bloomberg) showing Sanders up by one is discussed all day and then some but the PPP poll two days later showing Clinton up by 18 I have yet to hear mentioned and I've been watching a lot of news.

Most of the mentions of Clinton being unbeatable have been couched in terminology of Sanders is proving that wrong.


And yet, Sanders supporters still cry foul.

What did I miss, I'm sure you have a difference list than I have.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think there is some cabal going to out to sabotage Sanders on purpose, but machine politics are a very real thing. The system is set up to favor the establishment's favored candidate. That is the whole purpose of super delegates.

This was supposed to be Hillary's victory lap. A formality on her way to coronation as the nominee. It is finally "her turn" and the DNC has no intention of making it possible for anyone else to usurp her again. And neither do their friends in the media.

So, while they aren't intentionally throwing boulders in Sanders' way, its not like they paved a smooth path for him the way they did Wall Street Hill.

Like I said, "Most of the mentions of Clinton being unbeatable have been couched in terminology of Sanders is proving that wrong."

Show me even once where Clinton is reported as a sure win or her turn or supposed to be victory lap or anything similar that isn't followed by, but ... Sanders?

It's a Sanders camp and news media narrative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

MSNBC just described the race as "Sanders has Clinton on the ropes". They describe the NY race as "tightening", again, because of a single new poll. Do you think the Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton up by 12 reflects a different poll or some change in the candidate preference from a week ago when the Emerson poll had her up by 48. Or do you think the average of the polls showing a 27 point lead is a more valid interpretation?

Do you think if the next NY poll has Clinton up by 30 the media will mention Clinton's lead is growing? Or perhaps that won't be as newsworthy as Sanders gaining on Clinton in NY?

 

[Fudbucker]

If not for the train wreck that is Trump, the media would be obsessed with the story of how a 74 year old socialist that nobody ever heard of six months ago has almost a thousand pledged delegates, is out-fundraising Clinton, beating her by 50 point margins, beating her in head-to-head matchups against GOP candidates, and has a real chance at winning the nomination. You would never hear the end of it.

Hillary is an incredibly weak candidate. People don't liker her, they don't trust her, and if not for Trump, the election would be a lot more competitive than it currently is.

 

[Donal]

Like I said, "Most of the mentions of Clinton being unbeatable have been couched in terminology of Sanders is proving that wrong."

You can keep saying it. But that doesn't mean you've proved it.

Show me even once where Clinton is reported as a sure win or her turn or supposed to be victory lap or anything similar that isn't followed by, but ... Sanders?

Show me where anyone other than Wall Street Hill was considered a serious candidate prior before February. Biden was mentioned as a courtesy. 2016 was all about War Hawk Hill. Look who is currently running the DNC.

It's a Sanders camp and news media narrative.

Right, because the news media has been so friendly to Sanders. What with constantly portraying his supporters as 100% white frat bros. And giving him almost no air time and still far bellow his proportional share.

 

[Belz...]

I thought his answer was very satisfactory. Maybe you didn't understand the point. Number of cases is not relevant if they are not actually a verifiable purposeful act of sabotage of Sanders.

You seem a bit confused here. The answer that wasn't satisfactory was Bob's, not Foolmewunz's. Seriously, was my post that confusing?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If not for the train wreck that is Trump, the media would be obsessed with the story of how a 74 year old socialist that nobody ever heard of six months ago has almost a thousand pledged delegates, is out-fundraising Clinton, beating her by 50 point margins, beating her in head-to-head matchups against GOP candidates, and has a real chance at winning the nomination. You would never hear the end of it.

Hillary is an incredibly weak candidate. People don't liker her, they don't trust her, and if not for Trump, the election would be a lot more competitive than it currently is.

And yet Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. So how honest would that news narrative be that you are describing?

 

[jhunter1163]

MSNBC just described the race as "Sanders has Clinton on the ropes". They describe the NY race as "tightening", again, because of a single new poll. Do you think the Quinnipiac poll showing Clinton up by 12 reflects a different poll or some change in the candidate preference from a week ago when the Emerson poll had her up by 48. Or do you think the average of the polls showing a 27 point lead is a more valid interpretation?

Do you think if the next NY poll has Clinton up by 30 the media will mention Clinton's lead is growing? Or perhaps that won't be as newsworthy as Sanders gaining on Clinton in NY?

I think it should be pointed out that 54-42 is quite a bit different from, say, 44-32. Only 4% of voters haven't made up their minds in this poll; it's harder to change a mind that's already made up than it is to win over an undecided. I'll predict now that 54-42 will be pretty close to the final margin; I'll go out on a limb and say 55-45 Clinton.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can keep saying it. But that doesn't mean you've proved it.

I haven't heard anything else on the news except that narrative. I can't help it if you aren't watching the news.

Show me where anyone other than Wall Street Hill was considered a serious candidate prior before February. Biden was mentioned as a courtesy. 2016 was all about War Hawk Hill. Look who is currently running the DNC.

Wall St war hawk?

Right, because the news media has been so friendly to Sanders. What with constantly portraying his supporters as 100% white frat bros. And giving him almost no air time and still far bellow his proportional share.

So you want nothing but rosy news in all aspects? Clinton has not been indicted let alone convicted of any wrong doing with either Benghazi or the email server, yet the media is all to quick to publicize the latest right wing expert telling us an indictment is certain and is right around the corner.

Here's a distorted NYT news article for you: Bernie Sanders Wins Every Demographic Group If that were true, he'd be ahead and he isn't. Looking closer you find:

nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

So which is it, every or nearly every, and it's in a single state. That's not how he's doing in those demographics, it's how he's doing in one state.

Clinton could win about 54 percent of the remaining delegates, according to estimates for coming primaries based on demographic trends.

But the remaining states aren’t especially welcoming for him. Mrs. Clinton’s delegate advantage seems likelier to grow over the rest of the contests than to shrink. The remaining states force Mr. Sanders to confront his big weaknesses: affluence, diversity, establishment-friendly areas and closed primary contests....

...predominantly white, working-class states where Mr. Sanders is hoping to fare well: Wisconsin, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kentucky, Oregon, Indiana and West Virginia. ...

It’s important to note that this type of a model is not a prediction. It merely supposes that the rest of the campaign follows the same demographic patterns of the first half.

So either their data confirms how Sanders voters are being described is correct or they are just making their model data up.



MSNBC is on right now claiming Sanders has pulled ahead in WI. Again ignoring when polls show Clinton ahead but when a single poll favors Sanders it is reported as the current status of the electorate. It's the typical news reporting to take a single result be it a poll or a new study and proclaiming this result replaces all previous evidence.

We'll have to wait until Tues to see how Sanders does in WI.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem a bit confused here. The answer that wasn't satisfactory was Bob's, not Foolmewunz's. Seriously, was my post that confusing?

I was talking about Bob's answer. Why is it you don't get it? Credibility of evidence matters not volume.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it should be pointed out that 54-42 is quite a bit different from, say, 44-32. Only 4% of voters haven't made up their minds in this poll; it's harder to change a mind that's already made up than it is to win over an undecided. I'll predict now that 54-42 will be pretty close to the final margin; I'll go out on a limb and say 55-45 Clinton.

I think the poll averages have been close most of the time. That means Sanders will take WI but only by slim margins. Even 60:40 won't be enough.

I see no reason NY won't favor Clinton.

 

[jhunter1163]

I think the poll averages have been close most of the time. That means Sanders will take WI but only by slim margins. Even 60:40 won't be enough.

I see no reason NY won't favor Clinton.

Well, at 44-32 it's possible that the undecideds could break massively enough to the underdog's side to erase a 12-point lead. At 54-42, pretty much everyone's made up their mind; that's why I expect the final result in NY to be close to the current numbers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

538 has flipped its WI prediction with the latest poll giving Sanders 57 to Clintons 43. Clinton still has a 97% chance of winning in NY.

 

[wareyin]

538 has flipped its WI prediction with the latest poll giving Sanders 57 to Clintons 43.

There have actually been 2 polls released with Sanders leading; however 57 to 43 is chance of winning, not predicted results. Results are still Sanders 49.4%, Clinton 48.2%.