Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[TheL8Elvis]

Evidence of any of the highlighted? I am only aware of this one instance, which doesn't make a pattern, nor does it mean it was done by "a whole lot" of Clinton supporters, or even one Clinton supporter.

Seconded. At least, some demonstration of said pattern.

Thirded ....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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%.

I know that, sorry if I wasn't clear. Obviously Clinton is not going to get 97% of the NY vote so I thought it was self evident.

 

[wareyin]

I know that, sorry if I wasn't clear. Obviously Clinton is not going to get 97% of the NY vote so I thought it was self evident.

My apologies. You hadn't posted the 97% NY when I quoted, and there have been so many recent anti-polls/anti-Silver posts that I jumped into explanation mode. California has also been updated and looks good for Clinton.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My apologies. You hadn't posted the 97% NY when I quoted, and there have been so many recent anti-polls/anti-Silver posts that I jumped into explanation mode. California has also been updated and looks good for Clinton.

No worries.

 

[Belz...]

I was talking about Bob's answer. Why is it you don't get it?

Because Bob's answer was this:

There are significantly more claims of miracles and ghosts. I'm still an athiest and skeptic.

While Foolmewunz's answer was this:

I don't think it's a count. I think it's a question of whether these lie outside the norms. Because only one side is making a habit of reporting on these little blips, is that really an indication that no such mishaps have occurred to the other candidate? Without any statistics on the total of such incidents it's very hard to do anything other than what we normally do, which is to examine the claims and see how they stand up, individually. The latest two "conspiracies" just don't stand up to scrutiny. (This weak theory and the theory that the DNC screwed Bernie over in AZ.)

And you said this:

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.

So what were you refering to, exactly?

 

[Manopolus]

But despite all these mistakes, you still cannot produce a single shred of evidence that a single one was foul play? It seems given the frequency, something would turn up.

The fact that the same paperwork was exactly what put Hillary on the ballot speaks volumes. No, not a separate bit of the same type of paperwork -- it was the same exact piece/stack of paper provided by the DNC.

 

[Fudbucker]

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

Yeah, and Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates. Barely. That last word is why the Sanders-Clinton story is so remarkable. Most of the states have already voted and Bernie still has a chance of winning, is still out fund-raising her, and only six points behind in national polling.

Why can't she put Bernie away and focus on the GOP?

Because she's a deeply flawed candidate.

"Quinnipiac asked 1,563 voters and reported only the words that were said at least five times.

So what do voters really think of the 2016 presidential frontrunners? Here are the answers:

Hillary Clinton – ‘Liar’

Clinton can’t shake the reputation that she’s hiding something.

The word “liar” was mentioned 178 times in association with Hillary Clinton. Some of the other top words voters said to describe the former Secretary of State were “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “criminal.

34 percent of voters say Clinton is honest and trustworthy."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-liar-frequently-word-hillary-clinton/story?id=33361629

The only consolation is the GOP candidates are even worse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Honestly, Argumemnon, how hard can it be?

Let's go back to the beginning:

Not that I agree with luchog here, but how many "mistakes" would you consider one too many to be believable?

There are significantly more claims of miracles and ghosts. I'm still an athiest and skeptic.

Number of mistakes is analogous to number of claims there are miracles and ghosts.

It's the quality of the evidence not the quantity.

Your hypothetical was not relevant given the example we started with had more evidence of being benign than of being purposeful.

too late in the game to matter
easily corrected​

Both of those qualities meant this was not evidence of purposeful shenanigans.

 

[wareyin]

The fact that the same paperwork was exactly what put Hillary on the ballot speaks volumes. No, not a separate bit of the same type of paperwork -- it was the same exact piece/stack of paper provided by the DNC.

Did you miss the Washington Post article I posted in #219? You are incorrect on multiple levels.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact that the same paperwork was exactly what put Hillary on the ballot speaks volumes. No, not a separate bit of the same type of paperwork -- it was the same exact piece/stack of paper provided by the DNC.

Link? Because otherwise this is just an assumption we don't know. The paperwork could have been received at different times and processed by different people.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, and Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates. Barely. That last word is why the Sanders-Clinton story is so remarkable. Most of the states have already voted and Bernie still has a chance of winning, is still out fund-raising her, and only six points behind in national polling.

Why can't she put Bernie away and focus on the GOP?

Because she's a deeply flawed candidate.

"Quinnipiac asked 1,563 voters and reported only the words that were said at least five times.

So what do voters really think of the 2016 presidential frontrunners? Here are the answers:

Hillary Clinton – ‘Liar’

Clinton can’t shake the reputation that she’s hiding something.

The word “liar” was mentioned 178 times in association with Hillary Clinton. Some of the other top words voters said to describe the former Secretary of State were “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “criminal.

34 percent of voters say Clinton is honest and trustworthy."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-liar-frequently-word-hillary-clinton/story?id=33361629

The only consolation is the GOP candidates are even worse.

A lead of 224 pledged delegates is "barely"? How many was Obama leading by at this point in 08?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, and Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates. Barely. That last word is why the Sanders-Clinton story is so remarkable. Most of the states have already voted and Bernie still has a chance of winning, is still out fund-raising her, and only six points behind in national polling.[snipped your fantasizing]

So from your POV more than a 200 pledged delegate lead is "barely" ahead.

 

[Manopolus]

Link? Because otherwise this is just an assumption we don't know. The paperwork could have been received at different times and processed by different people.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-hold-emergency-vote-to-put-sanders-on-ballot

Hillary Clinton also appeared on the late submission, but only Sanders received a challenge over the error.

One of many I could have used. This one is less explicit than the one I originally read about it, but I'm not going to search for it. It was the same exact late submission that got Hillary on the ballot which should have gotten Bernie on it too. It's pretty clear that this was the result of someone issuing a legal challenge against Bernie while ignoring the fact that Hillary is in the exact same boat.

The DNC was the one who filed late paperwork -- didn't have much to do with either candidate separately. Both candidates were on that paperwork.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-hold-emergency-vote-to-put-sanders-on-ballot



One of many I could have used. This one is less explicit than the one I originally read about it, but I'm not going to search for it. It was the same exact late submission that got Hillary on the ballot which should have gotten Bernie on it too.

So it wasn't the DNC submission of the paperwork at all. Both candidates papers were handled equally.

D.C. council member and Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds will propose emergency legislation to ensure Sanders's name makes it on the ballot

A D.C. Democratic activist

challenged Sanders’s status as a legitimate candidate because of the delay and that has forced the Board of Elections to take up the matter later this week, according to D.C. Democratic Party Chair Anita Bonds.

One person, not the DNC, no conspiracy, just one non-supporter of Sanders.
I repeat, nothing to see here, move on.

 

[Tony Stark]

Bernie is barely behind? Please get a grip on reality. He is losing pretty badly and basically has no chance.

Please read this article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

If you can read this and still believe that Bernie is anything other than a very heavy underdog, you are delusional beyond belief.

 

[Manopolus]

So it wasn't the DNC submission of the paperwork at all. Both candidates papers were handled equally.

A D.C. Democratic activist

One person, not the DNC, no conspiracy, just one non-supporter of Sanders.
I repeat, nothing to see here, move on.

True enough. However, it does show clearly that the person making the legal challenge was likely a Clinton supporter with legalistic tendencies. I mainly wanted to clarify that there was a bias involved in the dispute itself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

True enough. However, it does show clearly that the person making the legal challenge was likely a Clinton supporter with legalistic tendencies. I mainly wanted to clarify that there was a bias involved in the dispute itself.

Riight.

 

[Manopolus]

Riight.

Nothing in my original post on the matter says anything other than what I just provided evidence for.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The fact that the same paperwork was exactly what put Hillary on the ballot speaks volumes. No, not a separate bit of the same type of paperwork -- it was the same exact piece/stack of paper provided by the DNC.

It speaks to nothing. You have a giant question mark between the submitted records and the outcome and no evidence for what happened.

 

[Fudbucker]

So from your POV more than a 200 pledged delegate lead is "barely" ahead.

Of course you realize the number, out of context, means nothing. Hillary has 1243, Bernie has 975. While "barely" might not be the best word, she's hardly running away with it, having lost the last six, and some of those by blow-out margins.

And I'll note the points about being out-fundraised, unlikeable, and untrustworthy are not disputed: most people do not like Hillary. The only candidate more unpopular than Hillary, is Trump.

Do you have an argument to make supporting your assertion that Hillary is a strong candidate? Or are you admitting she's weak?