Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

You joined a discussion implying the DNC conspired to keep Sanders off the ballot in DC. The discussion went on to ask what if there was a pattern of the DNC conspiring to not get Sanders on some ballots even though there was no evidence this was a purposeful effort on the DNC's part.

Then you said:

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.

Where in there are you saying it wasn't DNC caused?

And now that it's clear it was just a Democratic registered voter, not connected to the DNC as far as we can see, you moved from it's a DNC conspiracy (and if you never meant that you weren't paying attention to the exchange) to

I mainly wanted to clarify that there was a bias involved in the dispute itself.

DNC bias vs a single Democratic Party member bias are not only not the same, but more than that, the DNC filing the papers a day late became completely irrelevant to the discussion with your goal post move.

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

And he was supposed to lose Michigan, remember? Michigan turned into one of the biggest upsets in primary history. Since you like 538 so much:

"Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history."

So while Sanders is an underdog, the fact that he can still win at this late date says a lot about Hillary as a candidate, none of it good, and projections about his chances of winning must be taken with a yuuuuge grain of salt.

 

[Trakar]

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

You're correct, all we know is that the same paperwork was turned in to the DNC on the same day and for some reason the DNC filed Hillary's paperwork and didn't file Bernie's paperwork. And the DNC will be held to account for all of the one-sided issues that they have caused in this primary and election (not to mention the last 20 years or so of its two-faced, half-assed guidance of party and policy, that is why there is so much support for fundamentally cleaning out and restructuring of an organization that has proven to be corrupt and negligent in its leadership and operations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

You can daydream all you want. "Barely" wasn't even a close word.

Clinton won 7 out of 7 states on Mar 15. Sanders won the last 3. He won 2 out of 3 on the 22nd.

Where are you getting "the last 6" from? And how does that wipe out Clinton's run of 7 just 2 weeks ago?

You are stretching the facts beyond credulity.

There have been 35 contests. Clinton won 20 Sanders won 15. Sanders is not close.


Fund raising and likability don't matter. Look at Jeb's fundraising. Votes are the bottom line.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And he was supposed to lose Michigan, remember? ...

And win in Ohio, remember?

I can't find the link but IIRC 538 only got 4 wrong out of 30 or so states (at the time of the article).

 

[Childlike Empress]

I can only repeat myself - it's very curious to see the yuuge amount of energy the shillaries spend on trying to convince the world how wonderfully their dreadful idol does in this show.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're correct, all we know is that the same paperwork was turned in to the DNC on the same day and for some reason the DNC filed Hillary's paperwork and didn't file Bernie's paperwork. And the DNC will be held to account for all of the one-sided issues that they have caused in this primary and election (not to mention the last 20 years or so of its two-faced, half-assed guidance of party and policy, that is why there is so much support for fundamentally cleaning out and restructuring of an organization that has proven to be corrupt and negligent in its leadership and operations.

No that's not what happened. Do some fact checking, we got to to bottom of this upthread.

Both Clinton's and Sanders' papers were filed at the same time one day late for both. One individual challenged Sanders' candidacy.

 

[Fudbucker]

You can daydream all you want. "Barely" wasn't even a close word.

Clinton won 7 out of 7 states on Mar 15. Sanders won the last 3. He won 2 out of 3 on the 22nd.

Where are you getting "the last 6" from? And how does that wipe out Clinton's run of 7 just 2 weeks ago?

Sorry, five out of last six. It doesn't "wipe it out". It keeps Bernie on a path to the nomination.

You keep thinking that Hillary having a lead on Bernie means something. It means nothing. Bernie would be the oldest president, ever. He's be the only socialist president, ever. Bernie should not even be a factor at this point. Why is it even possible for Bernie to have a shot at winning? A strong candidate would not still be campaigning against him in April.

You are stretching the facts beyond credulity.

The only salient fact is that, in the month of April, Bernie can possibly win the nomination.

There have been 35 contests. Clinton won 20 Sanders won 15. Sanders is not close.

Again, it doesn't matter whether he's close. It matters that he's still beating Clinton, and by incredible margins in some states. Bernie won Washington 72-27%. How is that happening???

Fund raising and likability don't matter. Look at Jeb's fundraising. Votes are the bottom line.

Jeb is not a candidate anymore. Bernie is. If you don't think incredible amounts of money from small donors, likeability and honesty are driving forces behind Bernie's victories, you haven't been paying attention.

And you have no argument for why Hillary is a strong candidate. Your only argument is that, out of 2200 pledged delegates so far, Clinton's ahead of the old socialist by 263. Wow. Hillary is a real juggernaut.

 

[Fudbucker]

And win in Ohio, remember?

I can't find the link but IIRC 538 only got 4 wrong out of 30 or so states (at the time of the article).

No, cause it isn't true: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...hio_democratic_presidential_primary-5313.html
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/ohio-democratic/

 

[Donal]

So, my Better Half attended #BernieintheBronx. this afternoon (I couldn't take off work) and said it was packed. Although, apparently, Spike Lee and Rosario Dawson are now both white frat bros.

Bernie came in through a side entrance so he could give a quick speech to all the folks who couldn't fit into the park and were stuck waiting outside. The Better Half got within a few feet of him and it didn't even cost an Ivy League tuition.

 

[Tony Stark]

And he was supposed to lose Michigan, remember? Michigan turned into one of the biggest upsets in primary history. Since you like 538 so much:

"Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history."

So while Sanders is an underdog, the fact that he can still win at this late date says a lot about Hillary as a candidate, none of it good, and projections about his chances of winning must be taken with a yuuuuge grain of salt.

Ooh Michigan, sure because of Michigan all the polls are similarly off. Except Bernie vs Trump. Those polls are accurate because reasons.

He can win if there is the biggest turnaround perhaps ever. Anybody thinks he has a decent chance is VERY delusional.

 

[Trakar]

So what? I am saying that polls are one way in which these states are identified.

Yeah, I suppose if you want imprecise, vague snapshots, to discuss in bar conversations, that is probably the predominant measuring stick. The only polls that most serious political science analysts look at are the trends in previous local and state elections over at least the last 3-5 cycles,...if you are trying to determine whether or not a state is stable or shifting in its support of the current dominant political environment.

You tell by the shifts in state government and voting patterns in past elections state and national.

Which is what I said in the post you are responding to:

You tell by the shifts in state government and voting patterns in past elections state and national.

I've no idea what you mean. I am assuming you are talking about Sanders running as a Democrat, in which case the party will probably shoulder much of the campaign strategy rather than letting Sanders do it by himself.

I'm saying that Sanders can probably turn Alaska blue this year with no further investment by anyone, so long as his name is on the Ballot as the Democratic representative, especially if either Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee. But, I'm pretty sure that Hillary couldn't turn Alaska blue against any of the three Republicans still in the race regardless of who wins the Rep. nomination even if she and the democratic party invested time and money into such an effort.

Are you thinking of him running as an independent?

nope, not a viable path for third party candidacy with regard to the presidency in the current system.

It was a reference to something Manopolus said, but frankly, it applies to most Bernie Sanders fans who have to essentially be blind to the polls, or ignore them, to believe Sanders has much of a shot of getting the nomination.

You just come to the Bullish on Bernie thread to troll those who support him.

How sad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....You keep thinking that Hillary having a lead on Bernie means something. ...

Ummm yeah, it means she's winning.

 

[Fudbucker]

Ooh Michigan, sure because of Michigan all the polls are similarly off. Except Bernie vs Trump. Those polls are accurate because reasons.

He can win if there is the biggest turnaround perhaps ever. Anybody thinks he has a decent chance is VERY delusional.

You keep missing the point. There are two points: 1) it doesn't matter that Hillary is ahead by 15% of pledged delegates (or whatever the percent is), or Bernie's chances of winning are low. It's that Bernie has a chance at all. I'm sure Bernie is a gifted politician, but he's old as dirt, a self-described socialist, and he came out of nowhere, with no money, no superPAC's, and no name recognition, and stopped Hillary's coronation cold.

That wasn't in the script. Bernie's success is partly due to Hillary being a terrible politician. People don't like her, they don't trust her, they don't like how cozy she is with Wall Street, she supported Iraq (which Bernie opposed), she supported DOMA (which Bernie opposed), she makes outrageous claims, like dodging sniper fire, the FBI is investigating her... she's just not where the Democratic party is at. If she were, she'd have this thing wrapped up by now. And this isn't the first time an unknown Senator came out of the blue to challenge (and ultimately defeat) Hillary. She ran a terrible race against Obama, because she's a terrible candidate.

2. It's not just that Bernie wins. When he wins, his margins of victory are outrageous. Again, this is as much to do with Hillary being terrible as it is with Bernie being good.

I agree with you that it's probably going to be Hillary. I'm just saying Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate. The polling supports this, and Bernie's continued existence as a candidate supports this. He's probably going to win Wisconsin, and if Clinton does win this, it probably won't be until California votes, in JUNE.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You're correct, all we know is that the same paperwork was turned in to the DNC on the same day and for some reason the DNC filed Hillary's paperwork and didn't file Bernie's paperwork. And the DNC will be held to account for all of the one-sided issues that they have caused in this primary and election (not to mention the last 20 years or so of its two-faced, half-assed guidance of party and policy, that is why there is so much support for fundamentally cleaning out and restructuring of an organization that has proven to be corrupt and negligent in its leadership and operations.

What do you define as corruption by this private group?

 

[Fudbucker]

Ummm yeah, it means she's winning.

Ok, not my point, but whatever. Hillary's awesome. She's the best candidate ever. People think she's a liar and untrustworthy and she makes up **** about dodging sniper fire, and she voted for Iraq, and Trump is the only person more unpopular than her, but none of that matters. In Hillaryland, the only thing that matters is she has a lead on Sanders.

Truly, the Democrats are blessed to have her.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ok, not my point, but whatever. Hillary's awesome. She's the best candidate ever. People think she's a liar and untrustworthy and she makes up **** about dodging sniper fire, and she voted for Iraq, and Trump is the only person more unpopular than her, but none of that matters. In Hillaryland, the only thing that matters is she has a lead on Sanders.

Truly, the Democrats are blessed to have her.

The majority of Democrats so far seem to think she is the best option. Whatever her faults, it is apparently not enough.

 

[Belz...]

Honestly, Argumemnon, how hard can it be?

Let's go back to the beginning:



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

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

You are adding meaning to his post, then. Why didn't you just submit your own answer rather than pretend that someone else's post meant something else, I'll probably never know.

 

[Belz...]

I can only repeat myself - it's very curious to see the yuuge amount of energy the shillaries spend on trying to convince the world how wonderfully their dreadful idol does in this show.

She's going to win the nomination, so there's no effort required from them, really.

 

[Childlike Empress]

She's going to win the nomination, so there's no effort required from them, really.

If so, what's their motivation?